Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like former BOE member Jeanette Dixon thinks Taylor is asking for too much with his budget:

It's interesting that she uses her status as a former board member to sway current board decisions.

She's not wrong.

The county doesn't have this money and this isn't a realistic ask. This is a way to blame the Council when MCPS doesn't improve.

The ask is too large for the current grim or uncertain financial outlook for the area. Yes, in the perfect world the ask is correct and yes MCPS needs everything requested. But, it is an unreasonable request at the moment. I wish he had looked at capacity issues and the budget gains to be made by closing even one or two schools so people could see how that changes the math of how much is needed to properly fund MCPS. If Trump does close federal agencies and cut federal employees, our area will feel impact in loss of jobs so not a great time to be raising taxes. We have more federal agencies in our area than I think people know of and certainly lots more federal employees who work in DC live in Moco. We also have lots of people living here whose jobs are selling to or contracting to the federal government so again cuts could have a ripple effect. I hope the governor also looks at economic numbers as well and scales back the implementation of the blueprint for education since that too while a great plan is not financially viable now. I thought it was smart for to list the blueprint requirements and money to fund in its own section of the operating budget. Basically yes I agree that Taylor has well laid out how to make MCPS more successful again given it continues maintaining all current schools and programs. And I think the council can not provide the ask since it is more than the county can afford. Once the county says no and gives the amount they will fund, Taylor will then need to make cuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like former BOE member Jeanette Dixon thinks Taylor is asking for too much with his budget:

It's interesting that she uses her status as a former board member to sway current board decisions.

What did Jeanette Dixon do to limit wasteful spending when she was on the board? Don’t criticize it now.

And this is why we can’t get anything done because folks are focus on what Jeanette Dixon did or didn’t do in the past. Her point now is valid. Everyone of common sense knows that MCPS needs a big budget ask to get things right, just as they know that most other Supers have never been able to make such a big ask. Also it’s well known that this is supposed to be another fiscally difficult year.

Further there are some things listed here while nice are unrealistic. 688 Special Ed positions while secondary teachers continue to suffer with classroom sizes well above 30. And no mention of the type of Special Ed positions. Program and program location study as discretionary though it’s been stated repeatedly will be done alongside the boundary study. In fact Taylor said doing it in house was more effective and less costly than letting the hired boundary study contractor do it. And do all the BOE’s priorities, I heard no actual mention of how this budget helps to address them (sure I can make some inferences and assumptions but I shouldn’t have to).

Meanwhile we want folks to waste time, energy and likely dollars trying to turn the Transition half-day into a whole day. Like who the hell cares.

You can't possibly be questioning the need for those special education positions. They're absolutely needed. And MCPS should be paying those positions more so that they can fill them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like former BOE member Jeanette Dixon thinks Taylor is asking for too much with his budget:

It's interesting that she uses her status as a former board member to sway current board decisions.

What did Jeanette Dixon do to limit wasteful spending when she was on the board? Don’t criticize it now.

And this is why we can’t get anything done because folks are focus on what Jeanette Dixon did or didn’t do in the past. Her point now is valid. Everyone of common sense knows that MCPS needs a big budget ask to get things right, just as they know that most other Supers have never been able to make such a big ask. Also it’s well known that this is supposed to be another fiscally difficult year.

Further there are some things listed here while nice are unrealistic. 688 Special Ed positions while secondary teachers continue to suffer with classroom sizes well above 30. And no mention of the type of Special Ed positions. Program and program location study as discretionary though it’s been stated repeatedly will be done alongside the boundary study. In fact Taylor said doing it in house was more effective and less costly than letting the hired boundary study contractor do it. And do all the BOE’s priorities, I heard no actual mention of how this budget helps to address them (sure I can make some inferences and assumptions but I shouldn’t have to).

Meanwhile we want folks to waste time, energy and likely dollars trying to turn the Transition half-day into a whole day. Like who the hell cares.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like former BOE member Jeanette Dixon thinks Taylor is asking for too much with his budget:

It's interesting that she uses her status as a former board member to sway current board decisions.

What did Jeanette Dixon do to limit wasteful spending when she was on the board? Don’t criticize it now.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like former BOE member Jeanette Dixon thinks Taylor is asking for too much with his budget:

It's interesting that she uses her status as a former board member to sway current board decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What else since there's a massive shortfall?

We will find out once he releases the budget. I have heard central office and no student facing secondary school positions during his talk to the civic association. There will need to be more. I assume he plans to keep the increased class sizes started last year. I also head him mention issue in county with underutilized elementary schools projected to become more underutilized. I know the boundary study leaves out elementary school assignments but would not be shocked if he signaled willingness to close the most underutilized schools that are near schools that could take the displaced students. That would save large money. He could also eliminate some speciality academic programs that use MCPS busses. That would save money. He could lean into using Montgomery college more for upper level classes — as some high schools already do for classes above AP calculus and AP physics — and save money on teacher salaries/pensions by not having MCPS staff teach those classes while saying this makes it more equitable on opens access to higher level classes to all. He is going to have to cut some things that will anger parents.

Wouldn't that be the capital budget, rather than the operating budget?

The part that is operating budget not paying for the salaries of the staff from that building. So cafeteria staff, front desk, health room, janitorial, administrative etc…. And of course eliminating some teaching positions. Add in no upkeep, no utilities, no HVAC and no busses to that location The capital budget savings is on not doing any scheduled capital improvement projects. Closing an underutilized school when other nearby schools have enough capacity is a huge cost savings. Of course it stinks for the kids who were walking distance from the closed school. And it stinks for staff who hopefully all could be reassigned to schools with openings instead of loosing their jobs but fiscally it makes no sense to keep a school open that is under capacity and projected to remain that way or in the case of what MCPS shows for some areas continue shrinking. With budget constraints if taxes are not raised, MCPS can’t afford not to make the hard choices such as closing under capacity schools in geographies shown to have continued shirking school age population.

How many schools are under capacity and can the surrounding schools absorb new students, probably not.

There are a whole lot more under capacity schools than over capacity schools. To the point where MCPS can even close the over capacity schools, and their surrounding schools can absorb all those students that were in the over capacity school and still have extra room. MCPS doesn’t want you to know this cause then their budget might have to shrink (gasp). The more people think their schools are overcrowded the easier it is to keep asking for more money.

Which schools are under capacity and then you also need busses/drivers, etc. to get them there? You keep saying there are a lot of under capacity but which ones?

DP. The significantly under capacity high schools are Magruder, Sherwood, Springbrook, Watkins Mill, and Wootton.

Some of those are in the middle of nowhere so it would be hard to put more kids there. But, you can cosa in and your kids can be in a less crowded school.

You didn't actually look into this. Let's take Magruder - in a few years it will be at or over capacity.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04510.pdf

The latest available projections from the CIP are all here:

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/CIP26_AppendixE.pdf

Capacity means the max number, its a good thing if they are under that.

Except if there are overcrowded schools in the area. Springbrook has enough capacity to alleviate Blake and Paint Branch overcrowding, and they're all in the same consortium.

And this conversation is why a boundary study is needed. It makes zero sense to have overcapacity schools near under capacity schools. And certainly within a choice consortium model area it makes no sense. Kids should go to local schools near their houses with boundaries created to not cause overcrowding. As population growth areas change so too should school boundaries. It should be normal to expect boundaries to shift. And it would even make sense for special programs to shift locations. Already crowded schools do not need special programs to pull more kids. These programs should be at the under capacity schools. And in years to come areas can be re-zoned again and programs moved again so schools stay at capacity. And yes closing a school if there are not numbers of sustain it makes sense. And, re-opening it later if numbers grow makes sense as well. What makes no fiscal sense is running MCPS with more schools than needed to accommodate the actual number of students or having severely overcrowded schools with kids in portables near under capacity schools with empty seats. I hope MCPS takes a real look at capacity and makes some hard choices if needed. Right now I see lots of parents defending the right of their fiefdom/school to stay as is regardless of if that makes numerical sense.

The problem with this proposal in terms of shifting special we programs to different schools is that not all schools are equipped for all types of special ed programs. For SCB (school community based), schools need classrooms with bathrooms attached. Many schools with SCB also have kitchens in their classrooms. It’s not that easy to move programs around between schools. Some schools like BCC and Blair don’t have students with any moderate/severe disabilities. Some schools like Kennedy, Wheaton, Gburg, Seneca have 2 or more programs for students with moderate/severe disabilities. By the way, side note - did you know that students who are pursuing certificates rather than diplomas still count towards a schools’ graduation rate.

Students with specific, identified needs are assigned appropriately to a school that addresses those needs. Of course students pursuing certificates are counted as graduating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What else since there's a massive shortfall?

We will find out once he releases the budget. I have heard central office and no student facing secondary school positions during his talk to the civic association. There will need to be more. I assume he plans to keep the increased class sizes started last year. I also head him mention issue in county with underutilized elementary schools projected to become more underutilized. I know the boundary study leaves out elementary school assignments but would not be shocked if he signaled willingness to close the most underutilized schools that are near schools that could take the displaced students. That would save large money. He could also eliminate some speciality academic programs that use MCPS busses. That would save money. He could lean into using Montgomery college more for upper level classes — as some high schools already do for classes above AP calculus and AP physics — and save money on teacher salaries/pensions by not having MCPS staff teach those classes while saying this makes it more equitable on opens access to higher level classes to all. He is going to have to cut some things that will anger parents.

Wouldn't that be the capital budget, rather than the operating budget?

The part that is operating budget not paying for the salaries of the staff from that building. So cafeteria staff, front desk, health room, janitorial, administrative etc…. And of course eliminating some teaching positions. Add in no upkeep, no utilities, no HVAC and no busses to that location The capital budget savings is on not doing any scheduled capital improvement projects. Closing an underutilized school when other nearby schools have enough capacity is a huge cost savings. Of course it stinks for the kids who were walking distance from the closed school. And it stinks for staff who hopefully all could be reassigned to schools with openings instead of loosing their jobs but fiscally it makes no sense to keep a school open that is under capacity and projected to remain that way or in the case of what MCPS shows for some areas continue shrinking. With budget constraints if taxes are not raised, MCPS can’t afford not to make the hard choices such as closing under capacity schools in geographies shown to have continued shirking school age population.

How many schools are under capacity and can the surrounding schools absorb new students, probably not.

There are a whole lot more under capacity schools than over capacity schools. To the point where MCPS can even close the over capacity schools, and their surrounding schools can absorb all those students that were in the over capacity school and still have extra room. MCPS doesn’t want you to know this cause then their budget might have to shrink (gasp). The more people think their schools are overcrowded the easier it is to keep asking for more money.

Which schools are under capacity and then you also need busses/drivers, etc. to get them there? You keep saying there are a lot of under capacity but which ones?

DP. The significantly under capacity high schools are Magruder, Sherwood, Springbrook, Watkins Mill, and Wootton.

Some of those are in the middle of nowhere so it would be hard to put more kids there. But, you can cosa in and your kids can be in a less crowded school.

You didn't actually look into this. Let's take Magruder - in a few years it will be at or over capacity.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04510.pdf

The latest available projections from the CIP are all here:

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/CIP26_AppendixE.pdf

Capacity means the max number, its a good thing if they are under that.

Except if there are overcrowded schools in the area. Springbrook has enough capacity to alleviate Blake and Paint Branch overcrowding, and they're all in the same consortium.

And this conversation is why a boundary study is needed. It makes zero sense to have overcapacity schools near under capacity schools. And certainly within a choice consortium model area it makes no sense. Kids should go to local schools near their houses with boundaries created to not cause overcrowding. As population growth areas change so too should school boundaries. It should be normal to expect boundaries to shift. And it would even make sense for special programs to shift locations. Already crowded schools do not need special programs to pull more kids. These programs should be at the under capacity schools. And in years to come areas can be re-zoned again and programs moved again so schools stay at capacity. And yes closing a school if there are not numbers of sustain it makes sense. And, re-opening it later if numbers grow makes sense as well. What makes no fiscal sense is running MCPS with more schools than needed to accommodate the actual number of students or having severely overcrowded schools with kids in portables near under capacity schools with empty seats. I hope MCPS takes a real look at capacity and makes some hard choices if needed. Right now I see lots of parents defending the right of their fiefdom/school to stay as is regardless of if that makes numerical sense.

The problem with this proposal in terms of shifting special we programs to different schools is that not all schools are equipped for all types of special ed programs. For SCB (school community based), schools need classrooms with bathrooms attached. Many schools with SCB also have kitchens in their classrooms. It’s not that easy to move programs around between schools. Some schools like BCC and Blair don’t have students with any moderate/severe disabilities. Some schools like Kennedy, Wheaton, Gburg, Seneca have 2 or more programs for students with moderate/severe disabilities. By the way, side note - did you know that students who are pursuing certificates rather than diplomas still count towards a schools’ graduation rate.