Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty much public: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OA8HANnsPlM7-xyvfma4H_0nRLQRYaKo/view

Thanks so much for sharing. And it will probably be worse than this, because this list only goes up to $90M in cuts but it looks like Council is planning on cutting $108M.

$180M

It could theoretically be up to $180M, but Council staff has recommended cutting "only" $108M so that is probably the ceiling. This document covers how MCPS would absorb $90M in cuts (laying off 850 staff plus cutting everyone's COLAs) but they would need to do more to cover an $108M cut.

It's not a cut. MCPS will get an increased budget next year despite decreasing enrollment.

Ah, you're one of those pedants who pretends that inflation doesn't exist, I take it? Yes, technically it is not a cut in straight dollars. But practically speaking, it is a very large cut.

Nope. Under state law the Council must approve a budget that meets "maintenance of effort" which means per pupil spending is maintained after accounting for inflation. MCPS is asking for a massive amount over that minimum.

It is not a cut. You can argue they need the massive funding INCREASE they are requesting if you want.

MOE does not account for inflation.

Also MCPS is not asking for a massive amount over last year, it is asking for 5% more. County Council is considering giving them 0-2% more than last year. Inflation is 3.8% over the last year. So it is absolutely a cut in real terms.

Nobody wants to pay even more for a sh%tty school system that threatens to ruin staff summer vacation plans with four months notice as part of some stupid game TT thinks he can play, or refuses to offer any sort of meaningful acceleration for gifted students before middle school.

Anonymous wrote:Happy to take an early retirement. Thomas....call me!

You read my mind....let's go!

It is like me saying I want my salary doubled and then complaining my salary was cut in half when because they just gave me a small inflationary increase.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty much public: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OA8HANnsPlM7-xyvfma4H_0nRLQRYaKo/view

Thanks so much for sharing. And it will probably be worse than this, because this list only goes up to $90M in cuts but it looks like Council is planning on cutting $108M.

$180M

It could theoretically be up to $180M, but Council staff has recommended cutting "only" $108M so that is probably the ceiling. This document covers how MCPS would absorb $90M in cuts (laying off 850 staff plus cutting everyone's COLAs) but they would need to do more to cover an $108M cut.

It's not a cut. MCPS will get an increased budget next year despite decreasing enrollment.

Ah, you're one of those pedants who pretends that inflation doesn't exist, I take it? Yes, technically it is not a cut in straight dollars. But practically speaking, it is a very large cut.

Nope. Under state law the Council must approve a budget that meets "maintenance of effort" which means per pupil spending is maintained after accounting for inflation. MCPS is asking for a massive amount over that minimum.

It is not a cut. You can argue they need the massive funding INCREASE they are requesting if you want.

Is the position of the staff member responsible for posting on this MCPS forum also being cut? AKA the lawyer. Or is that Taylor himself posting here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty much public: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OA8HANnsPlM7-xyvfma4H_0nRLQRYaKo/view

Thanks so much for sharing. And it will probably be worse than this, because this list only goes up to $90M in cuts but it looks like Council is planning on cutting $108M.

$180M

It could theoretically be up to $180M, but Council staff has recommended cutting "only" $108M so that is probably the ceiling. This document covers how MCPS would absorb $90M in cuts (laying off 850 staff plus cutting everyone's COLAs) but they would need to do more to cover an $108M cut.

It's not a cut. MCPS will get an increased budget next year despite decreasing enrollment.

Ah, you're one of those pedants who pretends that inflation doesn't exist, I take it? Yes, technically it is not a cut in straight dollars. But practically speaking, it is a very large cut.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty much public: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OA8HANnsPlM7-xyvfma4H_0nRLQRYaKo/view

Thanks so much for sharing. And it will probably be worse than this, because this list only goes up to $90M in cuts but it looks like Council is planning on cutting $108M.

$180M

It could theoretically be up to $180M, but Council staff has recommended cutting "only" $108M so that is probably the ceiling. This document covers how MCPS would absorb $90M in cuts (laying off 850 staff plus cutting everyone's COLAs) but they would need to do more to cover an $108M cut.

It's not a cut. MCPS will get an increased budget next year despite decreasing enrollment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been said sooo many times, but it’s obvious that central office positions should be the top priority when making these cuts. Are some positions necessary? Yes. Are the majority? Absolutely not.

Central Office only has a few hundred positions even available to cut from. There's no way they can take all of the 850+ job cuts from there. Yes, they are wasteful, and they should probably cut more than the 30ish Central Office positions currently on the list, but they can probably feasibly only cut 100 or so more max, possibly less.

Better 100 of them and leave 100 middle school positions intact. More actually because CO salaries are bloated compared to teachers.

I don't disagree that more Central Office positions should be cut. If these cuts go through, I will be right there fighting with you to get the BOE to insist that as many of the cuts be taken by Central Office as possible.

But people who are not panicking about these cuts (some of them instead celebrating them!) on the assumption that there is so much waste in MCPS Central Office that they can just absorb them that way, are deluding themselves. Not just because Taylor and his team are unwilling to do that and the BOE are unwilling to force them to (although that is also true)-- but because even if they wanted to, it would only make a minor difference and save a small share of the school-based jobs.

If you do not want school-based jobs to be cut, you should contact County Council immediately and tell them not to make these cuts in funding. That is really the only option. The cuts are far too big to be absorbed by Central Office.

Hard to believe the bloated School Support and Leadership Office (DSLI) is not affected. Too many directors who bring little to the table.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty much public: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OA8HANnsPlM7-xyvfma4H_0nRLQRYaKo/view

Thanks so much for sharing. And it will probably be worse than this, because this list only goes up to $90M in cuts but it looks like Council is planning on cutting $108M.

$180M

It could theoretically be up to $180M, but Council staff has recommended cutting "only" $108M so that is probably the ceiling. This document covers how MCPS would absorb $90M in cuts (laying off 850 staff plus cutting everyone's COLAs) but they would need to do more to cover an $108M cut.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been said sooo many times, but it’s obvious that central office positions should be the top priority when making these cuts. Are some positions necessary? Yes. Are the majority? Absolutely not.

Central Office only has a few hundred positions even available to cut from. There's no way they can take all of the 850+ job cuts from there. Yes, they are wasteful, and they should probably cut more than the 30ish Central Office positions currently on the list, but they can probably feasibly only cut 100 or so more max, possibly less.

Better 100 of them and leave 100 middle school positions intact. More actually because CO salaries are bloated compared to teachers.

I don't disagree that more Central Office positions should be cut. If these cuts go through, I will be right there fighting with you to get the BOE to insist that as many of the cuts be taken by Central Office as possible.

But people who are not panicking about these cuts (some of them instead celebrating them!) on the assumption that there is so much waste in MCPS Central Office that they can just absorb them that way, are deluding themselves. Not just because Taylor and his team are unwilling to do that and the BOE are unwilling to force them to (although that is also true)-- but because even if they wanted to, it would only make a minor difference and save a small share of the school-based jobs.

If you do not want school-based jobs to be cut, you should contact County Council immediately and tell them not to make these cuts in funding. That is really the only option. The cuts are far too big to be absorbed by Central Office.

Happy to take an early retirement. Thomas....call me!

My quick correction: that 3.5 million should actually be 6.0 million, which takes into account elementary, middle, and high school. Still, that could translate to 60 CO employees at $100,000 a piece.

Losing both the Career and College Navigators and the English composition assistant is going to make things harder for seniors going through the college application process. The ECA who runs my kid's school's writing center was so helpful to my daughter, reading multiple drafts of her college essays and giving feedback, and the CCN kept things organized for the whole application process. The other cuts are also bad, but these two caught my eye in particular after going through the college process this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty much public: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OA8HANnsPlM7-xyvfma4H_0nRLQRYaKo/view

Thanks so much for sharing. And it will probably be worse than this, because this list only goes up to $90M in cuts but it looks like Council is planning on cutting $108M.

$180M