All instruction-related staff should have a minimum number of hours each year with direct, in-class instruction. Two weeks minimum. They can be subs.

Enough of this “I love teaching, that’s why I chose this career, but I refuse to be in the classroom, that work is for other people, who make less money than me.”

If you don’t want to be in front of students, you should not be paid as “instructional staff.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do instructional coaches do?

They literally make more work for teachers. That's their entire job. Some of them are nice people and well-liked, but few of us would miss those positions if they were all cut.

I disagree, at least at our school. With all the new teachers, they really help out with their planning and coaching. These teachers have mentors, but they can’t do it all, especially when they’re teaching their own classes.

Also with the amount of teacher trainees and novice teachers there is an absolute need for coaching support. I’ve seen first hand that teacher skillset in the county is not what it was 15 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. I would rather get a smaller raise than have any of the cuts happen. These cuts will make my job harder and is not in the best interest of students. If the cuts were instructional coaches, there would be less pushback as they do not work with students and make teacher’s jobs easier. IMO, those positions should be the first to go.

Principal here: Also happy to reduce the raise. I’m already working 65-70 hour work weeks. Cutting the sped dept chair and AART to halftime means more work for me and for teachers.

My understanding is that if teachers went to 5% and everyone else went to 4%, we wouldn’t be making any of these cuts. All of these cuts are on the back of elementary schools.

Teacher here, also happy to do without the raise if it means we can avoid the cuts. I've been saying for years that I don't want more money; I want better working conditions, and fewer working hours.

Different teacher here. I want the money. Assuming that you've been around for a while, you know that Gatehouse will never make our lives easier.

+1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. I would rather get a smaller raise than have any of the cuts happen. These cuts will make my job harder and is not in the best interest of students. If the cuts were instructional coaches, there would be less pushback as they do not work with students and make teacher’s jobs easier. IMO, those positions should be the first to go.

Principal here: Also happy to reduce the raise. I’m already working 65-70 hour work weeks. Cutting the sped dept chair and AART to halftime means more work for me and for teachers.

My understanding is that if teachers went to 5% and everyone else went to 4%, we wouldn’t be making any of these cuts. All of these cuts are on the back of elementary schools.

Teacher here, also happy to do without the raise if it means we can avoid the cuts. I've been saying for years that I don't want more money; I want better working conditions, and fewer working hours.

You don’t speak for all of us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do instructional coaches do?

They literally make more work for teachers. That's their entire job. Some of them are nice people and well-liked, but few of us would miss those positions if they were all cut.

Can you give an example of “more work?”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do instructional coaches do?

They literally make more work for teachers. That's their entire job. Some of them are nice people and well-liked, but few of us would miss those positions if they were all cut.

I disagree, at least at our school. With all the new teachers, they really help out with their planning and coaching. These teachers have mentors, but they can’t do it all, especially when they’re teaching their own classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. I would rather get a smaller raise than have any of the cuts happen. These cuts will make my job harder and is not in the best interest of students. If the cuts were instructional coaches, there would be less pushback as they do not work with students and make teacher’s jobs easier. IMO, those positions should be the first to go.

Principal here: Also happy to reduce the raise. I’m already working 65-70 hour work weeks. Cutting the sped dept chair and AART to halftime means more work for me and for teachers.

My understanding is that if teachers went to 5% and everyone else went to 4%, we wouldn’t be making any of these cuts. All of these cuts are on the back of elementary schools.

Teacher here, also happy to do without the raise if it means we can avoid the cuts. I've been saying for years that I don't want more money; I want better working conditions, and fewer working hours.

Different teacher here. I want the money. Assuming that you've been around for a while, you know that Gatehouse will never make our lives easier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are any students or staff benefitting from renaming the schools, changing all the bathrooms in the middle schools and high schools?

Pretty sure both of those things cost money and were all major talking points of the current school board that people elected and reelected.

BTW, how are all those electric buses coming along? I thought we were supposed to be all electric.

Changing the bathrooms how? My DW works in a MS and says she has seen no changes.

Money for electric buses was cut from the budget.

S/o real quick to note: At MS start time in-person community meetings FCPS reps said the ONLY way would change MS start times was if could support by all new electric buses and the transportation rep said “which we don’t have.” So much $ paid (more than 2 years) to consultants for something never happening.

Anonymous wrote:What do instructional coaches do?

They literally make more work for teachers. That's their entire job. Some of them are nice people and well-liked, but few of us would miss those positions if they were all cut.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. I would rather get a smaller raise than have any of the cuts happen. These cuts will make my job harder and is not in the best interest of students. If the cuts were instructional coaches, there would be less pushback as they do not work with students and make teacher’s jobs easier. IMO, those positions should be the first to go.

Principal here: Also happy to reduce the raise. I’m already working 65-70 hour work weeks. Cutting the sped dept chair and AART to halftime means more work for me and for teachers.

My understanding is that if teachers went to 5% and everyone else went to 4%, we wouldn’t be making any of these cuts. All of these cuts are on the back of elementary schools.

Teacher here, also happy to do without the raise if it means we can avoid the cuts. I've been saying for years that I don't want more money; I want better working conditions, and fewer working hours.

Anonymous wrote:Are any students or staff benefitting from renaming the schools, changing all the bathrooms in the middle schools and high schools?

Pretty sure both of those things cost money and were all major talking points of the current school board that people elected and reelected.

BTW, how are all those electric buses coming along? I thought we were supposed to be all electric.

Changing the bathrooms how? My DW works in a MS and says she has seen no changes.

Money for electric buses was cut from the budget.

Are any students or staff benefitting from renaming the schools, changing all the bathrooms in the middle schools and high schools?

Pretty sure both of those things cost money and were all major talking points of the current school board that people elected and reelected.

BTW, how are all those electric buses coming along? I thought we were supposed to be all electric.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can FCPS not increase revenue by charging for sports and after-school clubs?

They do charge for events: football games; concerts; plays; etc.

But, to play? participate? no. However, there are always additional expenses that picked up by the participants.

They should cut paying for AP exams. Maybe they should charge a fee to play sports. Maybe increase parking fee for students. All of these things are wants not needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. I would rather get a smaller raise than have any of the cuts happen. These cuts will make my job harder and is not in the best interest of students. If the cuts were instructional coaches, there would be less pushback as they do not work with students and make teacher’s jobs easier. IMO, those positions should be the first to go.

Principal here: Also happy to reduce the raise. I’m already working 65-70 hour work weeks. Cutting the sped dept chair and AART to halftime means more work for me and for teachers.

My understanding is that if teachers went to 5% and everyone else went to 4%, we wouldn’t be making any of these cuts. All of these cuts are on the back of elementary schools.

Teacher here:
Just want to point out that some of your teachers are also working 65-70 hour work weeks. Those aren’t simply admin hours.

You sound really petty. How about reading what the principal wrote in what you quoted: “Cutting the sped dept chair to halftime means more work for me AND TEACHERS.” Just wanted to point that out.

Anonymous wrote:Can FCPS not increase revenue by charging for sports and after-school clubs?

They do charge for events: football games; concerts; plays; etc.

But, to play? participate? no. However, there are always additional expenses that picked up by the participants.