Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to cut the increases over the past several years AND teachers should not get a 7 percent increase. Most jobs around the area are more like a 2 percent increase and many lost their jobs all together. Treat it like the 2009 crash.

Does anyone know what the police and fire departments are getting as far as pay increases, or is that not yet set?

Not finalized yet, but uniformed police are scheduled for 6.58% next year. Their increase was 10.69% this year and 12.83% last year before because they moved through the collective bargainig process a little more quickly than the teachers. Uniformed fire is scheduled for 5.58% next year. They got 7.85% and 7.83% last year, also due to collective bargaining.

Teachers got 4.00% this year, so less than their county counterparts who are also eligible for collective bargaining. The 7.00% for next year is their first increase under collective bargaining. Given the teacher shortage and the superintendent's recent significant raise, not a great idea to cut the teachers' collectively bargained increase, especially after fulfilling collective bargaining agreements with police and fire.

Everything can and should be revisited with Trump slashing federal jobs and destroying the savings of many Fairfax families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to cut the increases over the past several years AND teachers should not get a 7 percent increase. Most jobs around the area are more like a 2 percent increase and many lost their jobs all together. Treat it like the 2009 crash.

Does anyone know what the police and fire departments are getting as far as pay increases, or is that not yet set?

Not finalized yet, but uniformed police are scheduled for 6.58% next year. Their increase was 10.69% this year and 12.83% last year before because they moved through the collective bargainig process a little more quickly than the teachers. Uniformed fire is scheduled for 5.58% next year. They got 7.85% and 7.83% last year, also due to collective bargaining.

Teachers got 4.00% this year, so less than their county counterparts who are also eligible for collective bargaining. The 7.00% for next year is their first increase under collective bargaining. Given the teacher shortage and the superintendent's recent significant raise, not a great idea to cut the teachers' collectively bargained increase, especially after fulfilling collective bargaining agreements with police and fire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to cut the increases over the past several years AND teachers should not get a 7 percent increase. Most jobs around the area are more like a 2 percent increase and many lost their jobs all together. Treat it like the 2009 crash.

Does anyone know what the police and fire departments are getting as far as pay increases, or is that not yet set?

Not finalized yet, but uniformed police are scheduled for 6.58% next year. Their increase was 10.69% this year and 12.83% last year before because they moved through the collective bargainig process a little more quickly than the teachers. Uniformed fire is scheduled for 5.58% next year. They got 7.85% and 7.83% last year, also due to collective bargaining.

Teachers got 4.00% this year, so less than their county counterparts who are also eligible for collective bargaining. The 7.00% for next year is their first increase under collective bargaining. Given the teacher shortage and the superintendent's recent significant raise, not a great idea to cut the teachers' collectively bargained increase, especially after fulfilling collective bargaining agreements with police and fire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to cut the increases over the past several years AND teachers should not get a 7 percent increase. Most jobs around the area are more like a 2 percent increase and many lost their jobs all together. Treat it like the 2009 crash.

Does anyone know what the police and fire departments are getting as far as pay increases, or is that not yet set?

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to cut the increases over the past several years AND teachers should not get a 7 percent increase. Most jobs around the area are more like a 2 percent increase and many lost their jobs all together. Treat it like the 2009 crash.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You might be surprised to learn that teacher and instructional aid salary only makes up 41% of the budget. It is common misconception that is driven by FCPS messaging.

For example, the FCPS FY Toolkit (https://www.fcps.edu/fy-2026-budget-toolkit) includes the following statements:

“More than 85% of the budget is dedicated to instruction and reflects the needs of our community’s young people in response to the changing world around us. Budget priorities include providing competitive compensation for all employees, including a 7% salary increase for all staff. The majority of the budget increase is dedicated to that proposed 7% pay increase.”

and

“Breaking Down the Budget: Investing in Our Classrooms
Did you know that more than 85% of FCPS’ budget stays in our classrooms?”

Every presentation I have seen about budget needs highlights the salary differences between FCPS and surrounding districts based on teacher salary charts. The argument is always the same: competitive teacher salaries are essential for recruitment and retention.

If FCPS already pays bus drivers, custodians, principals, school-based counselors, and/or central office employees more than or commensurate amounts as other districts, should all these employees should get a 7% raise based on a disparity in teacher pay with other districts, if the primary goal is to increase teacher recruitment and retention?

It seems like there is an opportunity to make teacher pay more competitive, even with a reduced budget. I sincerely believe that every employee is an essential member of the team to support student learning. However, when the budget is tight, it is worth looking to see if a 7% raise is necessary for all employees of FCPS if the goal is teacher recruitment and retention, especially if those other positions already receive competitive levels on compensation.

Unless, of course, the true goal held by leadership is to scapegoat teachers for budget shortfalls.

+1
They blame it on the teachers because they think that will get them the money.

Thank you for posting this. Claiming that 85% is spent on instruction (I suspect that Reid's $500K is included in that) and then illustrating that only 41% is spent on classroom instruction is revealing.

I was a teacher. This is egregious. Every line item should be examined.

Thank you! I am a teacher and it sometimes feels like shouting into the wind when I try to separate actual teacher salaries from the total budget numbers FCPS puts out to justify their budget asks.

I got the 41% number directly from a SB rep. I posed the following question:

“What percentage of the FCPS budget is exclusively teacher and instructional aid salary? Just teacher and instructional aid salary. Not training, administration, support, or any other associated costs. Strictly the salary of teachers and instructional aids as a percentage of the total budget.”

And got the following answer:

“41% of the FCPS budget is teacher and IA salaries.”

I recognize that the total cost of compensation and training are not fully encompassed in salary. However, I framed the question strictly in terms of salary for the following reasons:

1) the 7% raise ask in the budget is only for salary

2) the salary charts for teachers in surrounding jurisdictions, not training/support/other compensation are used to compare/justify budget asks.

I wanted to compare apples and apples. FCPS is asking for money based on salary comparisons, and the public believes that number accounts for 85% of the total budget.

While there are many “supportable interpretations” of the 85% number put forth by FCPS, it can be misleading. It’s like I tell my students when they submit written work: your goal should not be to submit written work that makes it possible for the reader to understand the information that you intend to convey, you should instead submit work that makes it difficult for the reader to misunderstand what you have written.

Verily, much of the increased spending since 2021 is not general education teacher salaries

Specifically, from 2021 to 2025, School Operting Fund increased spending by $754 million. Kindergarten and Gen Ed teacher salaries for elementary, middle, and high school increased only $100 million.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You might be surprised to learn that teacher and instructional aid salary only makes up 41% of the budget. It is common misconception that is driven by FCPS messaging.

For example, the FCPS FY Toolkit (https://www.fcps.edu/fy-2026-budget-toolkit) includes the following statements:

“More than 85% of the budget is dedicated to instruction and reflects the needs of our community’s young people in response to the changing world around us. Budget priorities include providing competitive compensation for all employees, including a 7% salary increase for all staff. The majority of the budget increase is dedicated to that proposed 7% pay increase.”

and

“Breaking Down the Budget: Investing in Our Classrooms
Did you know that more than 85% of FCPS’ budget stays in our classrooms?”

Every presentation I have seen about budget needs highlights the salary differences between FCPS and surrounding districts based on teacher salary charts. The argument is always the same: competitive teacher salaries are essential for recruitment and retention.

If FCPS already pays bus drivers, custodians, principals, school-based counselors, and/or central office employees more than or commensurate amounts as other districts, should all these employees should get a 7% raise based on a disparity in teacher pay with other districts, if the primary goal is to increase teacher recruitment and retention?

It seems like there is an opportunity to make teacher pay more competitive, even with a reduced budget. I sincerely believe that every employee is an essential member of the team to support student learning. However, when the budget is tight, it is worth looking to see if a 7% raise is necessary for all employees of FCPS if the goal is teacher recruitment and retention, especially if those other positions already receive competitive levels on compensation.

Unless, of course, the true goal held by leadership is to scapegoat teachers for budget shortfalls.

+1
They blame it on the teachers because they think that will get them the money.

Thank you for posting this. Claiming that 85% is spent on instruction (I suspect that Reid's $500K is included in that) and then illustrating that only 41% is spent on classroom instruction is revealing.

I was a teacher. This is egregious. Every line item should be examined.

Thank you! I am a teacher and it sometimes feels like shouting into the wind when I try to separate actual teacher salaries from the total budget numbers FCPS puts out to justify their budget asks.

I got the 41% number directly from a SB rep. I posed the following question:

“What percentage of the FCPS budget is exclusively teacher and instructional aid salary? Just teacher and instructional aid salary. Not training, administration, support, or any other associated costs. Strictly the salary of teachers and instructional aids as a percentage of the total budget.”

And got the following answer:

“41% of the FCPS budget is teacher and IA salaries.”

I recognize that the total cost of compensation and training are not fully encompassed in salary. However, I framed the question strictly in terms of salary for the following reasons:

1) the 7% raise ask in the budget is only for salary

2) the salary charts for teachers in surrounding jurisdictions, not training/support/other compensation are used to compare/justify budget asks.

I wanted to compare apples and apples. FCPS is asking for money based on salary comparisons, and the public believes that number accounts for 85% of the total budget.

While there are many “supportable interpretations” of the 85% number put forth by FCPS, it can be misleading. It’s like I tell my students when they submit written work: your goal should not be to submit written work that makes it possible for the reader to understand the information that you intend to convey, you should instead submit work that makes it difficult for the reader to misunderstand what you have written.

Verily, much of the increased spending since 2021 is not general education teacher salaries

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You might be surprised to learn that teacher and instructional aid salary only makes up 41% of the budget. It is common misconception that is driven by FCPS messaging.

For example, the FCPS FY Toolkit (https://www.fcps.edu/fy-2026-budget-toolkit) includes the following statements:

“More than 85% of the budget is dedicated to instruction and reflects the needs of our community’s young people in response to the changing world around us. Budget priorities include providing competitive compensation for all employees, including a 7% salary increase for all staff. The majority of the budget increase is dedicated to that proposed 7% pay increase.”

and

“Breaking Down the Budget: Investing in Our Classrooms
Did you know that more than 85% of FCPS’ budget stays in our classrooms?”

Every presentation I have seen about budget needs highlights the salary differences between FCPS and surrounding districts based on teacher salary charts. The argument is always the same: competitive teacher salaries are essential for recruitment and retention.

If FCPS already pays bus drivers, custodians, principals, school-based counselors, and/or central office employees more than or commensurate amounts as other districts, should all these employees should get a 7% raise based on a disparity in teacher pay with other districts, if the primary goal is to increase teacher recruitment and retention?

It seems like there is an opportunity to make teacher pay more competitive, even with a reduced budget. I sincerely believe that every employee is an essential member of the team to support student learning. However, when the budget is tight, it is worth looking to see if a 7% raise is necessary for all employees of FCPS if the goal is teacher recruitment and retention, especially if those other positions already receive competitive levels on compensation.

Unless, of course, the true goal held by leadership is to scapegoat teachers for budget shortfalls.

+1
They blame it on the teachers because they think that will get them the money.

Thank you for posting this. Claiming that 85% is spent on instruction (I suspect that Reid's $500K is included in that) and then illustrating that only 41% is spent on classroom instruction is revealing.

I was a teacher. This is egregious. Every line item should be examined.

Thank you! I am a teacher and it sometimes feels like shouting into the wind when I try to separate actual teacher salaries from the total budget numbers FCPS puts out to justify their budget asks.

I got the 41% number directly from a SB rep. I posed the following question:

“What percentage of the FCPS budget is exclusively teacher and instructional aid salary? Just teacher and instructional aid salary. Not training, administration, support, or any other associated costs. Strictly the salary of teachers and instructional aids as a percentage of the total budget.”

And got the following answer:

“41% of the FCPS budget is teacher and IA salaries.”

I recognize that the total cost of compensation and training are not fully encompassed in salary. However, I framed the question strictly in terms of salary for the following reasons:

1) the 7% raise ask in the budget is only for salary

2) the salary charts for teachers in surrounding jurisdictions, not training/support/other compensation are used to compare/justify budget asks.

I wanted to compare apples and apples. FCPS is asking for money based on salary comparisons, and the public believes that number accounts for 85% of the total budget.

While there are many “supportable interpretations” of the 85% number put forth by FCPS, it can be misleading. It’s like I tell my students when they submit written work: your goal should not be to submit written work that makes it possible for the reader to understand the information that you intend to convey, you should instead submit work that makes it difficult for the reader to misunderstand what you have written.

Anonymous wrote:County revenue is going to plunge because... you think property values are going to plummet, or...?