Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

It isn't about the difficulty of the position- it's about the difficulty of filling the position. SPED, and to a lesser extent, STEM, positions have consistently been the hardest to fill.

This. You can’t just decide to pay special education teachers more because some of you have a vested interest in special education. There is a shortage of physics teachers especially for advanced courses like AP and IB physics. Should we pay physics teachers more? What about advanced CS teachers? The problem with special education is that due to lawsuits, etc., the documentation and paperwork requirements have exploded. The job requirements need to be pared down

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

It isn't about the difficulty of the position- it's about the difficulty of filling the position. SPED, and to a lesser extent, STEM, positions have consistently been the hardest to fill.

This. You can’t just decide to pay special education teachers more because some of you have a vested interest in special education. There is a shortage of physics teachers especially for advanced courses like AP and IB physics. Should we pay physics teachers more? What about advanced CS teachers? The problem with special education is that due to lawsuits, etc., the documentation and paperwork requirements have exploded. The job requirements need to be pared down

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

It isn't about the difficulty of the position- it's about the difficulty of filling the position. SPED, and to a lesser extent, STEM, positions have consistently been the hardest to fill.

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: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.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Until MCEA allows MCPS to restructure SPeD pay they're going to have a very hard time recruiting for those positions.

+1.

Special education teachers, SLPs, OTs, and paraeducators working with children with special needs should have a separate pay scale that is 20% higher than the standard scales (with benefits for all SPED paraeducators). Throw in a signing bonus with a 5 year commitment.

English and social studies teachers in MCPS will never let that happen. They're terrified STEM teachers would also get higher pay than them.

STEM is harder to staff than English and SS. Particularly high level classes. That said, the English and some History classes should get TA’s to help with grading.

Given our poor literacy and writing proficiency levels in MD and MCPS, no one should be minimizing the value and importance of strong, comprehensive instruction in ELA or social studies.

STEM subjects are not inherently more valuable than ELA and SS.

My hs student has read one book this year in honors English. The curriculum is a huge problem.

The curriculum is not the problem and if so to a lesser extent. Implementation is a problem. Setting High Expectations isn’t a problem. Student being properly prepared is a problem. Large class sizes and teachers having too many sections is a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Until MCEA allows MCPS to restructure SPeD pay they're going to have a very hard time recruiting for those positions.

+1.

Special education teachers, SLPs, OTs, and paraeducators working with children with special needs should have a separate pay scale that is 20% higher than the standard scales (with benefits for all SPED paraeducators). Throw in a signing bonus with a 5 year commitment.

English and social studies teachers in MCPS will never let that happen. They're terrified STEM teachers would also get higher pay than them.

STEM is harder to staff than English and SS. Particularly high level classes. That said, the English and some History classes should get TA’s to help with grading.

Given our poor literacy and writing proficiency levels in MD and MCPS, no one should be minimizing the value and importance of strong, comprehensive instruction in ELA or social studies.

STEM subjects are not inherently more valuable than ELA and SS.

My hs student has read one book this year in honors English. The curriculum is a huge problem.

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Until MCEA allows MCPS to restructure SPeD pay they're going to have a very hard time recruiting for those positions.

+1.

Special education teachers, SLPs, OTs, and paraeducators working with children with special needs should have a separate pay scale that is 20% higher than the standard scales (with benefits for all SPED paraeducators). Throw in a signing bonus with a 5 year commitment.

English and social studies teachers in MCPS will never let that happen. They're terrified STEM teachers would also get higher pay than them.

STEM is harder to staff than English and SS. Particularly high level classes. That said, the English and some History classes should get TA’s to help with grading.

Given our poor literacy and writing proficiency levels in MD and MCPS, no one should be minimizing the value and importance of strong, comprehensive instruction in ELA or social studies.

STEM subjects are not inherently more valuable than ELA and SS.

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Until MCEA allows MCPS to restructure SPeD pay they're going to have a very hard time recruiting for those positions.

+1.

Special education teachers, SLPs, OTs, and paraeducators working with children with special needs should have a separate pay scale that is 20% higher than the standard scales (with benefits for all SPED paraeducators). Throw in a signing bonus with a 5 year commitment.

English and social studies teachers in MCPS will never let that happen. They're terrified STEM teachers would also get higher pay than them.

STEM is harder to staff than English and SS. Particularly high level classes. That said, the English and some History classes should get TA’s to help with grading.

Given our poor literacy and writing proficiency levels in MD and MCPS, no one should be minimizing the value and importance of strong, comprehensive instruction in ELA or social studies.

STEM subjects are not inherently more valuable than ELA and SS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Until MCEA allows MCPS to restructure SPeD pay they're going to have a very hard time recruiting for those positions.

+1.

Special education teachers, SLPs, OTs, and paraeducators working with children with special needs should have a separate pay scale that is 20% higher than the standard scales (with benefits for all SPED paraeducators). Throw in a signing bonus with a 5 year commitment.

English and social studies teachers in MCPS will never let that happen. They're terrified STEM teachers would also get higher pay than them.

STEM is harder to staff than English and SS. Particularly high level classes. That said, the English and some History classes should get TA’s to help with grading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Until MCEA allows MCPS to restructure SPeD pay they're going to have a very hard time recruiting for those positions.

+1.

Special education teachers, SLPs, OTs, and paraeducators working with children with special needs should have a separate pay scale that is 20% higher than the standard scales (with benefits for all SPED paraeducators). Throw in a signing bonus with a 5 year commitment.

English and social studies teachers in MCPS will never let that happen. They're terrified STEM teachers would also get higher pay than them.

STEM is harder to staff than English and SS. Particularly high level classes. That said, the English and some History classes should get TA’s to help with grading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Until MCEA allows MCPS to restructure SPeD pay they're going to have a very hard time recruiting for those positions.

+1.

Special education teachers, SLPs, OTs, and paraeducators working with children with special needs should have a separate pay scale that is 20% higher than the standard scales (with benefits for all SPED paraeducators). Throw in a signing bonus with a 5 year commitment.

English and social studies teachers in MCPS will never let that happen. They're terrified STEM teachers would also get higher pay than them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Until MCEA allows MCPS to restructure SPeD pay they're going to have a very hard time recruiting for those positions.

+1.

Special education teachers, SLPs, OTs, and paraeducators working with children with special needs should have a separate pay scale that is 20% higher than the standard scales (with benefits for all SPED paraeducators). Throw in a signing bonus with a 5 year commitment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though the net total of students is about the same, individual schools' populations have changed and APs are assigned by school #s and student population needs, like Title 1 schools.

It's bizarre to me that between FY21 FY25 they added in total over 200 staff in the following categories:
- Executive
- Administrative (directors, supervisors, program coordinators, executive assistants)
- Business/Operations Administrator (leadership positions supervised by directors and supervisors)
- Other professional (12-month instructional/evaluation specialists)
- Principal/Assistant Principal
- Other Support Personnel (business, technology, human resources, communications, printing and other support staff)

And in FY25 they CUT 258 teaching positions leading to some massive class sizes.

It really feels like the priorities are way off.


Where did you find the FY21 and FY25 data? I tried searching this thread, but couldn’t find the source.

Which sections cover Reading Specialist, Math Coaches, Social Workers, since they were all added since then.

They also cut close to 80CO positions in FY25.