Anonymous wrote:They're announcing a new $2750 hiring incentive for special ed teachers:

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/press/index.aspx?pagetype=showrelease&id=13180&type=&startYear=&pageNumber=&mode=

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're announcing a new $2750 hiring incentive for special ed teachers:

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/press/index.aspx?pagetype=showrelease&id=13180&type=&startYear=&pageNumber=&mode=

Is that a signing bonus for first time hires or does every Special Education teacher get the incentive? The link is not very clear as to who specifically is specifically being targeted with such a late announcement of the plan.

Anonymous wrote:They're announcing a new $2750 hiring incentive for special ed teachers:

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/press/index.aspx?pagetype=showrelease&id=13180&type=&startYear=&pageNumber=&mode=

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKnight is flat out lying in these quoted statements. I’m new to MCPS this year in a part time position that was created by combining sections (thus increasing class size) to make a full time position part time. This happened a lot in secondary schools because principals were given less FTE’s due to declining enrollment at most schools.


https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-looks-to-substitutes-to-help-offset-staff-vacancies-as-first-day-of-school-nears/

Which quoted statement in particular are you claiming isn't true? If enrollment declined at a school, doesn't it make sense that fewer FTEs would be allotted?

Don't know but am thrilled McKnight was able to head off this crisis before it became a problem. Kudos to her and MCPS for a job well done!

HAHAHA. it’s not “headed off” and no one solved the problem. Don’t believe the spin.

PR team working a late one…

God, you’re exhausting. I’m not on the “PR team.” I don’t work for any school or school district. Grow up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKnight is flat out lying in these quoted statements. I’m new to MCPS this year in a part time position that was created by combining sections (thus increasing class size) to make a full time position part time. This happened a lot in secondary schools because principals were given less FTE’s due to declining enrollment at most schools.


https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-looks-to-substitutes-to-help-offset-staff-vacancies-as-first-day-of-school-nears/

Which quoted statement in particular are you claiming isn't true? If enrollment declined at a school, doesn't it make sense that fewer FTEs would be allotted?

Don't know but am thrilled McKnight was able to head off this crisis before it became a problem. Kudos to her and MCPS for a job well done!

HAHAHA. it’s not “headed off” and no one solved the problem. Don’t believe the spin.

PR team working a late one…

They hate it when people contradict their crazy right-wing narrative with actual experiences and facts. Just ignore them and keeping posting!

God, you’re exhausting. I’m not on the “PR team.” I don’t work for any school or school district. Grow up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the number of paraeducator positions that are unfilled.

-Look how many are cobbled together, meaning a few hours of paraeducator work with students + a few hours of lunch and recess coverage

-Look how many are TPT (temporary part time - low hourly rate with no benefits for working FT)

While not as important as a teacher, if your child was in a classroom with the child who needed the paraeducator, has potential to not go well.

Are they done with the "classroom monitor" positions now that COVID Is over? Maybe they could recruit some of them. I think they made even less than paras.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKnight is flat out lying in these quoted statements. I’m new to MCPS this year in a part time position that was created by combining sections (thus increasing class size) to make a full time position part time. This happened a lot in secondary schools because principals were given less FTE’s due to declining enrollment at most schools.


https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-looks-to-substitutes-to-help-offset-staff-vacancies-as-first-day-of-school-nears/

Which quoted statement in particular are you claiming isn't true? If enrollment declined at a school, doesn't it make sense that fewer FTEs would be allotted?

Don't know but am thrilled McKnight was able to head off this crisis before it became a problem. Kudos to her and MCPS for a job well done!

HAHAHA. it’s not “headed off” and no one solved the problem. Don’t believe the spin.

PR team working a late one…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust the PR spin or McKnight yet. I am still seeing 471 positions available. It is laughable to depend on substitutes especially for SPED. No sub wants to be long term unless they are desperate for work.

Long term subs make more money than regular subs. Why would the prefer daily sub jobs when they pay less and the kids behave worse?

No grading.
No planning.
No meetings.
No contacting parents.
No work outside of contact hours.

The question is why anyone would want to be a long-term sub. They do everything a teacher does, for less money.

Anonymous wrote:“As of June 13, there were 581 unfilled positions. Meanwhile, 973 teachers have indicated they will be resigning or retiring.“


https://www.mymcmedia.org/mcps-faces-teacher-shortage-for-next-school-year/


No mention of staffing for student support or bus driver positions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the number of paraeducator positions that are unfilled.

-Look how many are cobbled together, meaning a few hours of paraeducator work with students + a few hours of lunch and recess coverage

-Look how many are TPT (temporary part time - low hourly rate with no benefits for working FT)

While not as important as a teacher, if your child was in a classroom with the child who needed the paraeducator, has potential to not go well.

They're always TPT. It's unconscionable that they are paid so little and get no benefits. Might as well work at Starbucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust the PR spin or McKnight yet. I am still seeing 471 positions available. It is laughable to depend on substitutes especially for SPED. No sub wants to be long term unless they are desperate for work.

That's not what it says on the careers page. It's like 240. And apparently some are in the process of being filled -- like 90. I wonder if they'll up date the numbers there daily.

Anonymous wrote:Look at the number of paraeducator positions that are unfilled.

-Look how many are cobbled together, meaning a few hours of paraeducator work with students + a few hours of lunch and recess coverage

-Look how many are TPT (temporary part time - low hourly rate with no benefits for working FT)

While not as important as a teacher, if your child was in a classroom with the child who needed the paraeducator, has potential to not go well.

Anonymous wrote:Look at the number of paraeducator positions that are unfilled.

-Look how many are cobbled together, meaning a few hours of paraeducator work with students + a few hours of lunch and recess coverage

-Look how many are TPT (temporary part time - low hourly rate with no benefits for working FT)

While not as important as a teacher, if your child was in a classroom with the child who needed the paraeducator, has potential to not go well.