Anonymous wrote:This send like an extremely stupid thing to worry about. Seriously?

If you are referring to the 2 days in late December next year it's pretty much a given that many people will be out so the school should be closed then. The purpose of creating a calendar is to have school on days where 90%+ are going to be there. The issue is Maryland law combined with how all the religious holidays impact school days next year and potentially SEIU even though plenty of other places still close two weeks despite that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

You mean the vote where the board voted against ALL the majorities votes in the poll? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DBDRGC6DE899/$file/Approval%202025-2026%20Sch%20Year%20Calendars%20241205.pdf

A majority of people in the poll also wanted the earlier last day, which is what they went with.

They can still get it by moving the transition day and having school on October 17 or 20.

But that's not what was proposed or voted for, so no, they can't still get it.

That doesn't mean they can't get it, it means they CHOSE not to get it.

Attendance those 2 days before Christmas next year is going to be awful, so don't acted surprised with over 1/3 of people absent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

But we know now that MCEA is going to keep looking for ways to cut instructional hours. Now that Zimmerman is on the board, watch out for them trying to switch a bunch of days to half days.

I don’t think this is true. Most teachers don’t love half days. What teachers want is their planning time.

Half days are MCEA's idea for more planning time.

No, they want their planning periods which are being taken away due to lack of subs.

Then MCEA needs to push for higher sub pay. It is ridiculously low.

They'll never do that. They want that money for themselves.

They in fact advocated for better sub pay during last year's budget cycle:

"Restore and increase the substitute salary allocations and expand the highly successful and collaboratively developed permanent substitute program."

https://www.mceanea.org/2024/02/20/this-week-at-mcea-5/

Negotiations are a zero-sum game. What are they willing to give up to make it happen?

This send like an extremely stupid thing to worry about. Seriously?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

You mean the vote where the board voted against ALL the majorities votes in the poll? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DBDRGC6DE899/$file/Approval%202025-2026%20Sch%20Year%20Calendars%20241205.pdf

A majority of people in the poll also wanted the earlier last day, which is what they went with.

They can still get it with moving the transition day and having school on October 17 or 20.

But that's not what was proposed or voted for, so no, they can't still get it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

You mean the vote where the board voted against ALL the majorities votes in the poll? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DBDRGC6DE899/$file/Approval%202025-2026%20Sch%20Year%20Calendars%20241205.pdf

A majority of people in the poll also wanted the earlier last day, which is what they went with.

They can still get it with moving the transition day and having school on October 17 or 20.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

You mean the vote where the board voted against ALL the majorities votes in the poll? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DBDRGC6DE899/$file/Approval%202025-2026%20Sch%20Year%20Calendars%20241205.pdf

They did what MCEA told them to do.

In this case it was SEIU, not MCEA.

SEIU seems more like a we've never done this (2-week break) before so we are afraid of the extended stretch,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

But we know now that MCEA is going to keep looking for ways to cut instructional hours. Now that Zimmerman is on the board, watch out for them trying to switch a bunch of days to half days.

I don’t think this is true. Most teachers don’t love half days. What teachers want is their planning time.

Half days are MCEA's idea for more planning time.

No, they want their planning periods which are being taken away due to lack of subs.

Then MCEA needs to push for higher sub pay. It is ridiculously low.

They'll never do that. They want that money for themselves.

They in fact advocated for better sub pay during last year's budget cycle:

"Restore and increase the substitute salary allocations and expand the highly successful and collaboratively developed permanent substitute program."

https://www.mceanea.org/2024/02/20/this-week-at-mcea-5/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

But we know now that MCEA is going to keep looking for ways to cut instructional hours. Now that Zimmerman is on the board, watch out for them trying to switch a bunch of days to half days.

I don’t think this is true. Most teachers don’t love half days. What teachers want is their planning time.

Half days are MCEA's idea for more planning time.

No, they want their planning periods which are being taken away due to lack of subs.

Then MCEA needs to push for higher sub pay. It is ridiculously low.

They'll never do that. They want that money for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

But we know now that MCEA is going to keep looking for ways to cut instructional hours. Now that Zimmerman is on the board, watch out for them trying to switch a bunch of days to half days.

I don’t think this is true. Most teachers don’t love half days. What teachers want is their planning time.

Half days are MCEA's idea for more planning time.

No, they want their planning periods which are being taken away due to lack of subs.

Then MCEA needs to push for higher sub pay. It is ridiculously low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

You mean the vote where the board voted against ALL the majorities votes in the poll? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DBDRGC6DE899/$file/Approval%202025-2026%20Sch%20Year%20Calendars%20241205.pdf

A majority of people in the poll also wanted the earlier last day, which is what they went with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

You mean the vote where the board voted against ALL the majorities votes in the poll? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DBDRGC6DE899/$file/Approval%202025-2026%20Sch%20Year%20Calendars%20241205.pdf

They did what MCEA told them to do.

In this case it was SEIU, not MCEA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

You mean the vote where the board voted against ALL the majorities votes in the poll? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DBDRGC6DE899/$file/Approval%202025-2026%20Sch%20Year%20Calendars%20241205.pdf

They did what MCEA told them to do.

Not what the people (students, teachers, parents) asked for

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

You mean the vote where the board voted against ALL the majorities votes in the poll? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DBDRGC6DE899/$file/Approval%202025-2026%20Sch%20Year%20Calendars%20241205.pdf

They did what MCEA told them to do.

Anonymous wrote:This is a moot point because the calendar has already been voted on, and the state requirement of 180 days isn't going anywhere.

You mean the vote where the board voted against ALL the majorities votes in the poll? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DBDRGC6DE899/$file/Approval%202025-2026%20Sch%20Year%20Calendars%20241205.pdf