In FY2026 proposed budget book, they have all the details: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/FY-2026-Proposed-Budget.pdf

Page 153:

Teachers Total: $1,534,864,117
Instructional Assistants Total: $116,187,844

On page 53:

Salaries: $2,437,900,000

In WABE guide, they have specific definitions so the districts are comparing apples to apples:

School-Based Positions:

Teachers: Includes all instructors under contract, regular classroom teachers, special education teachers, ESOL, coaches, mentors, vocational education teachers, speech therapists, physical therapists, school counselors, librarians, homebound teachers under contract, music, physical education, and itinerant teachers

School-Based Administrators: Includes principals, assistant principals, student services directors, and student activity directors

Instructional Assistants: Includes instructional aides and teacher aides

Educational Specialists: Includes program and educational specialists (not central office curriculum development), school-based technology specialists, instructional coaches, social workers, and psychologists

Nonmanagement/All Others: Includes school clerical staff, custodial staff, and other school-based support positions

Nonschool-Based Positions

Technical/Support: Includes accountants, financial analysts, personnel analysts, management analysts, computer programmers and analysts, professional engineers, and architects

Management: Includes directors, senior managers, senior analysts, department administrators and supervisors, special assistants, executive assistants, and area administrators

Educational Specialists: Includes curriculum specialists and program specialists that are nonschool-based (central office curriculum development)

Clerical: Includes nonschool-based clerical staff

Custodial/Maintenance: Includes nonschool-based custodial, maintenance, print shop, and warehouse employees

Leadership Team/Cabinet Includes division, deputy, associate, assistant, area superintendents, and chiefs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Instructional coaches
Too many people in administration--if the principal was in the school most of the time, maybe we would not need so many AP's.


You’re saying that instructional coaches should be cut? Seriously? Who is going to help train up all those teachers with little to no experience? Again, you’re going after next to nothing. The instructional coaches salaries budget went from $62M to $33M for next year. That’s 1.5% of the budget down to 0.8% of the budget.

As for APs, the total budget for all MS and HS APs is 0.79% of the total budget. That’s less than one percent.

They cut that budget because those people were not training teachers. The people who help new teachers the most are their mentors and other teachers who are actually in the building with them (and who know what is going on in the building). Instructional coaches are really not worth much IMO.

The model for instructional coaches is that they only help a teacher when the teacher, not the admin, asks for assistance.

As a 25 year veteran teacher of FCPS I asked for assistance once about eight years ago, just to see what the process was like. It made so much extra work for me. I would never do it again.

Anonymous wrote:The budget is not transparent at all.

No other public agency gives you a detailed breakdown so you don’t get it for the school system as well

Anonymous wrote:The budget is not transparent at all.

Perhaps you just have difficulty understanding complex things.

The budget is not transparent at all.

Anonymous wrote:


Instructional coaches
Too many people in administration--if the principal was in the school most of the time, maybe we would not need so many AP's.


You’re saying that instructional coaches should be cut? Seriously? Who is going to help train up all those teachers with little to no experience? Again, you’re going after next to nothing. The instructional coaches salaries budget went from $62M to $33M for next year. That’s 1.5% of the budget down to 0.8% of the budget.

As for APs, the total budget for all MS and HS APs is 0.79% of the total budget. That’s less than one percent.

They cut that budget because those people were not training teachers. The people who help new teachers the most are their mentors and other teachers who are actually in the building with them (and who know what is going on in the building). Instructional coaches are really not worth much IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

My point is that it’s so quick and easy (and apparently in fashion) to blame all of the problems at the feet of “waste”. People are obsessed with the false idea that there’s just tons of jobs of lazy people collecting paychecks. I don’t know what that’s about but in 15 years of my educational career I’ve yet to actually come across a job that’s actually not necessary. Have I met people who suck at their jobs? Sure, but that’s a human condition, not an occupational one.


+1000 Say it louder for the people in the back!!!
Our sped dept chair is invaluable. Cutting them would just mean more work for an already overworked team.

Instructional coaches
Too many people in administration--if the principal was in the school most of the time, maybe we would not need so many AP's.

You’re saying that instructional coaches should be cut? Seriously? Who is going to help train up all those teachers with little to no experience? Again, you’re going after next to nothing. The instructional coaches salaries budget went from $62M to $33M for next year. That’s 1.5% of the budget down to 0.8% of the budget.

As for APs, the total budget for all MS and HS APs is 0.79% of the total budget. That’s less than one percent.

Anonymous wrote:In the thread on the superintendent, someone claimed that 90% of the budget goes to salary and a “vast majority” of that goes to teachers and instructional aids. That seemed like an overstatement. When challenged on these “stats” someone replied that 95% of 90% of the budget goes to teachers and instructional aids. They cited this link:

https://www.fcps.edu/fy-2026-budget-toolkit

I looked and looked, and I can’t find anything close to numbers that support the claim that 81% of the FCPS goes exclusively to teacher and instructional aid salary. Can someone help me out here? What percentage of the FCPS budget is teacher and instructional aid salary? Just teachers and instructional aids. Not admin or Gatehouse.

You’re misunderstanding what’s been said. FCPS has never said that 81% of the budget goes to teacher and IA salaries. It goes to instruction, which also means things like materials in addition to salaries.

40% of the total budget goes to teacher and IA salaries.

Breaking Down the Budget: Investing in Our Classrooms
Did you know that more than 85% of FCPS’ budget stays in our classrooms? Currently, 92.5% of FCPS staff are school-based, more than neighboring school districts.

My point is that it’s so quick and easy (and apparently in fashion) to blame all of the problems at the feet of “waste”. People are obsessed with the false idea that there’s just tons of jobs of lazy people collecting paychecks. I don’t know what that’s about but in 15 years of my educational career I’ve yet to actually come across a job that’s actually not necessary. Have I met people who suck at their jobs? Sure, but that’s a human condition, not an occupational one.


+1000 Say it louder for the people in the back!!!
Our sped dept chair is invaluable. Cutting them would just mean more work for an already overworked team.

Instructional coaches
Too many people in administration--if the principal was in the school most of the time, maybe we would not need so many AP's.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/FY-2026-Proposed-Budget.pdf

Start on page 152.

(Or page 164 of the pdf)

$1.5B for teachers
$116M for IAs

$1.6B total

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What you really need to look at is teachers/teacher's aides that have students assigned to their classes. FCPS loves to claim that 90+% of the budget goes directly to schools, but there are a lot of positions in schools anymore that do have have classroom responsibilities. Those are the positions that the county could cut back on if they were looking to trim back. Examples (Extra Assistant Principals, SOSAs, Deans, Special Ed Department Chairs, Resource teachers, etc.)

Respectfully I couldn’t disagree more. You’re drawing to straight of a line and thinking you’re trimming fat when in reality you’re actually adding more problem to the classroom teachers plate.


Take “extra” AP’s for instance, where you see waste I see someone who can now tackle behavioral concerns that impact my classroom environment. Insubordination has steadily risen in the last 5 years, without administrators the task of sorting out the issue falls squarely on me.


Or SpEd department chairs? When done correctly that job pays dividends in spades for the entire building, helps SpEd teachers find some semblance of balance, correctly supports the proper placement of students into the LRE. It’s by no means an easy job, I actually think it probably involves more work than most positions in the building. As a tired and over worked SpEd teacher I laughed when someone suggested I apply for the role in my building, it’s maybe the only gig that makes SpEd teachers go, “I guess it could be worse…”


My point is that it’s so quick and easy (and apparently in fashion) to blame all of the problems at the feet of “waste”. People are obsessed with the false idea that there’s just tons of jobs of lazy people collecting paychecks. I don’t know what that’s about but in 15 years of my educational career I’ve yet to actually come across a job that’s actually not necessary. Have I met people who suck at their jobs? Sure, but that’s a human condition, not an occupational one.

+1000 Say it louder for the people in the back!!!
Our sped dept chair is invaluable. Cutting them would just mean more work for an already overworked team.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/FY-2026-Proposed-Budget.pdf

Start on page 152.