Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor wants an increase. Where is this money going? How about transparency!

Have you even bothered to look at the details? Almost all
of the increase simply goes to pay and benefits.

That's just part of the money, what about the rest of the money. MCPS has a huge budget and it should be in this kind of mess.

It's 80% of the increase.

Yes, the detailed budget breakdown is important, and presumably they'll release more information publicly as they've done in previous years, but this is a strange thing to get hung up on right now. The idea of a small increase nominally for costs beyond salaries should not be surprising or immediately viewed with suspicion. Inflation drives costs up each year- flat spending is really a cut.

They need to manage the money better. Most of us aren't getting pay raises and many are out of work, which impacts the county revenue and they are tone-deaf not to realize how many families are struggling right now.

Tightening the belt, so to speak, during economic downturns might be acceptable if it wasn't also done during economic booms. We've had 15 years of slow cuts to schools because old people never want to see their taxes go up to help kids.

You do realize many old people are on fixed incomes, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor wants an increase. Where is this money going? How about transparency!

Have you even bothered to look at the details? Almost all
of the increase simply goes to pay and benefits.

That's just part of the money, what about the rest of the money. MCPS has a huge budget and it should be in this kind of mess.

It's 80% of the increase.

Yes, the detailed budget breakdown is important, and presumably they'll release more information publicly as they've done in previous years, but this is a strange thing to get hung up on right now. The idea of a small increase nominally for costs beyond salaries should not be surprising or immediately viewed with suspicion. Inflation drives costs up each year- flat spending is really a cut.

They need to manage the money better. Most of us aren't getting pay raises and many are out of work, which impacts the county revenue and they are tone-deaf not to realize how many families are struggling right now.

Tightening the belt, so to speak, during economic downturns might be acceptable if it wasn't also done during economic booms. We've had 15 years of slow cuts to schools because old people never want to see their taxes go up to help kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any written information provided on the budget yet or just this meeting?

I think it should go up here but hasn't been posted yet: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/

The one page summary has been posted: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17GJKuduRVabGklonUKc2u7VmIcBsrbNW/view?usp=drivesdk

Thank you. 50 people from central services is a lot. Did they clarify what jobs will be cut?

That will hopefully be clearer when the full details are out. Based on other posters it seems like a lot will be from special ed and the social workers, which is concerning as he stated in his presentation that the cuts were to get rid of positions they didn't see as a "priority." Mental health, family support and special education seem to be pretty important! Even when you consider his own slide of what MCPS wants to focus on. And I believe special ed enrollment is increasing, so why limit its support? It's a clever trick to call any non-school based staff "central services" when many are clearly in the schools often, or are benefiting schools directly on a regular basis.

DCUM: "Look at the huge bloat in MCPS central office! Fairfax has a much lower proportion of staff in their central office! Cuts are in order!"

Also DCUM: "Categorizing staff who often are in schools [but who may work across schools] as central is a trick! There's no way we should be cutting these services!"

Um...[checks notes from past DCUM threads]...it's the same kinds of functions, just historically categorized differently between the two systems from an administrative/budgeting perspective

I think we all have the brain capacity to understand that people want less higher level admin who sit in central office all day contributing a questionable amount of value to the system. Versus "central office" staff who actually support schools and do the work Taylor supposedly wants to prioritize. Based on what we know I agree it's disingenuous to use the ill will toward Central office admin bloat as a vague cover to get rid of staff who actually help schools.

That may be the desire, and I don't doubt the capacity. However, I do doubt the general willingness to delve in enough to have the perspective to support effective critical thought about the matter. I'd bet most, if they would look at last year's operating budget documentation, would be astonished at how few there are to support the many things we really want done: sourcing of good curricula, maintenance and improvement of facilities, analysis of initiative/program effectiveness to ensure efforts/$ aren't wasted, etc.,

The management of those FTEs may be wanting and the direction they are given may be beholden to the views of a few towards the top whose objectives may not match those of the community, but that is a different problem from "bloat." Not that I think that there isn't any at all, but that I expect it's not the kind of low-hanging fruit that some seem to think it is.

And I agree with your agreement with my unstated, but, in retrospect, probably implied, notion -- that sentiment shouldn't be used as cover to cut school supports.

DP I think there are a couple issues here:

1. Central office is not popular. They put out a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense, and so people don't like them. Does everyone know exactly which central office people do these things? Of course not. And everyone should be respectful and kind, and I'm sure there are really competent people who are categorized as central office staff who are doing important work either providing direct services in schools or not. But goodness, some of the things certain central office staff say and do are just not helpful and get in the way of MCPS's core mission.
2. It's not in the Superintendent's interest, the BOE's interest or the unions' interest to address the real reason for MCPS's budgetary woes, which is compensation costs. Nobody wants to talk about cutting teacher pensions or raising their healthcare premiums. So it's not surprising that folks look for different scapegoats. There is just no way around the fact that MCPS's costs will keep rising more than inflation for the same services and there isn't the requisite economic growth to pay for more things without tax increases, which is unwise in a recession.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any written information provided on the budget yet or just this meeting?

I think it should go up here but hasn't been posted yet: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/

The one page summary has been posted: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17GJKuduRVabGklonUKc2u7VmIcBsrbNW/view?usp=drivesdk

Thank you. 50 people from central services is a lot. Did they clarify what jobs will be cut?

That will hopefully be clearer when the full details are out. Based on other posters it seems like a lot will be from special ed and the social workers, which is concerning as he stated in his presentation that the cuts were to get rid of positions they didn't see as a "priority." Mental health, family support and special education seem to be pretty important! Even when you consider his own slide of what MCPS wants to focus on. And I believe special ed enrollment is increasing, so why limit its support? It's a clever trick to call any non-school based staff "central services" when many are clearly in the schools often, or are benefiting schools directly on a regular basis.

DCUM: "Look at the huge bloat in MCPS central office! Fairfax has a much lower proportion of staff in their central office! Cuts are in order!"

Also DCUM: "Categorizing staff who often are in schools [but who may work across schools] as central is a trick! There's no way we should be cutting these services!"

Um...[checks notes from past DCUM threads]...it's the same kinds of functions, just historically categorized differently between the two systems from an administrative/budgeting perspective

I think we all have the brain capacity to understand that people want less higher level admin who sit in central office all day contributing a questionable amount of value to the system. Versus "central office" staff who actually support schools and do the work Taylor supposedly wants to prioritize. Based on what we know I agree it's disingenuous to use the ill will toward Central office admin bloat as a vague cover to get rid of staff who actually help schools.

That may be the desire, and I don't doubt the capacity. However, I do doubt the general willingness to delve in enough to have the perspective to support effective critical thought about the matter. I'd bet most, if they would look at last year's operating budget documentation, would be astonished at how few there are to support the many things we really want done: sourcing of good curricula, maintenance and improvement of facilities, analysis of initiative/program effectiveness to ensure efforts/$ aren't wasted, etc.,

The management of those FTEs may be wanting and the direction they are given may be beholden to the views of a few towards the top whose objectives may not match those of the community, but that is a different problem from "bloat." Not that I think that there isn't any at all, but that I expect it's not the kind of low-hanging fruit that some seem to think it is.

And I agree with your agreement with my unstated, but, in retrospect, probably implied, notion -- that sentiment shouldn't be used as cover to cut school supports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any written information provided on the budget yet or just this meeting?

I think it should go up here but hasn't been posted yet: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/

The one page summary has been posted: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17GJKuduRVabGklonUKc2u7VmIcBsrbNW/view?usp=drivesdk

Thank you. 50 people from central services is a lot. Did they clarify what jobs will be cut?

That will hopefully be clearer when the full details are out. Based on other posters it seems like a lot will be from special ed and the social workers, which is concerning as he stated in his presentation that the cuts were to get rid of positions they didn't see as a "priority." Mental health, family support and special education seem to be pretty important! Even when you consider his own slide of what MCPS wants to focus on. And I believe special ed enrollment is increasing, so why limit its support? It's a clever trick to call any non-school based staff "central services" when many are clearly in the schools often, or are benefiting schools directly on a regular basis.

DCUM: "Look at the huge bloat in MCPS central office! Fairfax has a much lower proportion of staff in their central office! Cuts are in order!"

Also DCUM: "Categorizing staff who often are in schools [but who may work across schools] as central is a trick! There's no way we should be cutting these services!"

Um...[checks notes from past DCUM threads]...it's the same kinds of functions, just historically categorized differently between the two systems from an administrative/budgeting perspective

I think we all have the brain capacity to understand that people want less higher level admin who sit in central office all day contributing a questionable amount of value to the system. Versus "central office" staff who actually support schools and do the work Taylor supposedly wants to prioritize. Based on what we know I agree it's disingenuous to use the ill will toward Central office admin bloat as a vague cover to get rid of staff who actually help schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor wants an increase. Where is this money going? How about transparency!

Have you even bothered to look at the details? Almost all
of the increase simply goes to pay and benefits.

That's just part of the money, what about the rest of the money. MCPS has a huge budget and it should be in this kind of mess.

It's 80% of the increase.

Yes, the detailed budget breakdown is important, and presumably they'll release more information publicly as they've done in previous years, but this is a strange thing to get hung up on right now. The idea of a small increase nominally for costs beyond salaries should not be surprising or immediately viewed with suspicion. Inflation drives costs up each year- flat spending is really a cut.

They need to manage the money better. Most of us aren't getting pay raises and many are out of work, which impacts the county revenue and they are tone-deaf not to realize how many families are struggling right now.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any written information provided on the budget yet or just this meeting?

I think it should go up here but hasn't been posted yet: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/

The one page summary has been posted: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17GJKuduRVabGklonUKc2u7VmIcBsrbNW/view?usp=drivesdk

Thank you. 50 people from central services is a lot. Did they clarify what jobs will be cut?

That will hopefully be clearer when the full details are out. Based on other posters it seems like a lot will be from special ed and the social workers, which is concerning as he stated in his presentation that the cuts were to get rid of positions they didn't see as a "priority." Mental health, family support and special education seem to be pretty important! Even when you consider his own slide of what MCPS wants to focus on. And I believe special ed enrollment is increasing, so why limit its support? It's a clever trick to call any non-school based staff "central services" when many are clearly in the schools often, or are benefiting schools directly on a regular basis.

DCUM: "Look at the huge bloat in MCPS central office! Fairfax has a much lower proportion of staff in their central office! Cuts are in order!"

Also DCUM: "Categorizing staff who often are in schools [but who may work across schools] as central is a trick! There's no way we should be cutting these services!"

Um...[checks notes from past DCUM threads]...it's the same kinds of functions, just historically categorized differently between the two systems from an administrative/budgeting perspective

DP

You know "DCUM" is not a person, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor wants an increase. Where is this money going? How about transparency!

Have you even bothered to look at the details? Almost all
of the increase simply goes to pay and benefits.

That's just part of the money, what about the rest of the money. MCPS has a huge budget and it should be in this kind of mess.

It's 80% of the increase.

Yes, the detailed budget breakdown is important, and presumably they'll release more information publicly as they've done in previous years, but this is a strange thing to get hung up on right now. The idea of a small increase nominally for costs beyond salaries should not be surprising or immediately viewed with suspicion. Inflation drives costs up each year- flat spending is really a cut.

They need to manage the money better. Most of us aren't getting pay raises and many are out of work, which impacts the county revenue and they are tone-deaf not to realize how many families are struggling right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reducing elementary class sizes by 1

Reducing elementary class sizes is a good goal, but reducing them by one will have a negligible impact on classrooms. I'd want to see reductions of class size by 3-5 before I clap for Taylor.

So by what amounts to another class? Where are these other classes going to be placed in schools?

If it's reducing class sizes by one, it just means going back to the guidelines in place a couple years ago before they raised them by 1.

With declining enrollment, maybe this is just natural attrition in student numbers than any intentional action by MCPS.

Class size is not the same as absolute size. A school can lose 100 kids and class sizes still stay the same. They just hire fewer teachers. The number of teachers they hire is based on the number of kids they have, and they are talking about adjusting this formula.

Not sure what you mean. If the number of kids at a school drops, but the number of classroom teachers stays the same, the average class size will drop. That doesn't mean all class sizes at that school will drop, but you'd expect that trend over time.

As the other poster said, this is how it works: in the spring, principals get their “allocation” number. It’s the number of teachers that their school will get the following year based on their population. If they lose population, then they lose a teacher. Those teachers are involuntarily transferred based on seniority, meaning that they have to go work at another school.

I wonder if there will be enough attrition to support these transfers. The difference between the loss of positions from declining enrollment and adding more to elementary schools is about a 100 position loss. If teachers have tenure where will they go?

They move around or lose their jobs. Happens more often than you realize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any written information provided on the budget yet or just this meeting?

I think it should go up here but hasn't been posted yet: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/

The one page summary has been posted: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17GJKuduRVabGklonUKc2u7VmIcBsrbNW/view?usp=drivesdk

Thank you. 50 people from central services is a lot. Did they clarify what jobs will be cut?

That will hopefully be clearer when the full details are out. Based on other posters it seems like a lot will be from special ed and the social workers, which is concerning as he stated in his presentation that the cuts were to get rid of positions they didn't see as a "priority." Mental health, family support and special education seem to be pretty important! Even when you consider his own slide of what MCPS wants to focus on. And I believe special ed enrollment is increasing, so why limit its support? It's a clever trick to call any non-school based staff "central services" when many are clearly in the schools often, or are benefiting schools directly on a regular basis.

DCUM: "Look at the huge bloat in MCPS central office! Fairfax has a much lower proportion of staff in their central office! Cuts are in order!"

Also DCUM: "Categorizing staff who often are in schools [but who may work across schools] as central is a trick! There's no way we should be cutting these services!"

Um...[checks notes from past DCUM threads]...it's the same kinds of functions, just historically categorized differently between the two systems from an administrative/budgeting perspective

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor wants an increase. Where is this money going? How about transparency!

Have you even bothered to look at the details? Almost all
of the increase simply goes to pay and benefits.

That's just part of the money, what about the rest of the money. MCPS has a huge budget and it should be in this kind of mess.

It's 80% of the increase.

Yes, the detailed budget breakdown is important, and presumably they'll release more information publicly as they've done in previous years, but this is a strange thing to get hung up on right now. The idea of a small increase nominally for costs beyond salaries should not be surprising or immediately viewed with suspicion. Inflation drives costs up each year- flat spending is really a cut.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reducing elementary class sizes by 1

Reducing elementary class sizes is a good goal, but reducing them by one will have a negligible impact on classrooms. I'd want to see reductions of class size by 3-5 before I clap for Taylor.

So by what amounts to another class? Where are these other classes going to be placed in schools?

If it's reducing class sizes by one, it just means going back to the guidelines in place a couple years ago before they raised them by 1.

With declining enrollment, maybe this is just natural attrition in student numbers than any intentional action by MCPS.

Class size is not the same as absolute size. A school can lose 100 kids and class sizes still stay the same. They just hire fewer teachers. The number of teachers they hire is based on the number of kids they have, and they are talking about adjusting this formula.

Not sure what you mean. If the number of kids at a school drops, but the number of classroom teachers stays the same, the average class size will drop. That doesn't mean all class sizes at that school will drop, but you'd expect that trend over time.

As the other poster said, this is how it works: in the spring, principals get their “allocation” number. It’s the number of teachers that their school will get the following year based on their population. If they lose population, then they lose a teacher. Those teachers are involuntarily transferred based on seniority, meaning that they have to go work at another school.

I wonder if there will be enough attrition to support these transfers. The difference between the loss of positions from declining enrollment and adding more to elementary schools is about a 100 position loss. If teachers have tenure where will they go?

MCPS doesn't post turnover data but presumably there are teachers retiring of their own accord every year. MCPS has about 14,000 teachers of which more than half have 20 or more years of experience. It would not surprise me if over 100 of them were retiring every year, actually I'd probably be more suprised if there are fewer than 100 retirements every year.

Last year there were 647 retirements across MCPS.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/news/mcps-news/2025/06/2025-retirements/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reducing elementary class sizes by 1

Reducing elementary class sizes is a good goal, but reducing them by one will have a negligible impact on classrooms. I'd want to see reductions of class size by 3-5 before I clap for Taylor.

So by what amounts to another class? Where are these other classes going to be placed in schools?

If it's reducing class sizes by one, it just means going back to the guidelines in place a couple years ago before they raised them by 1.

With declining enrollment, maybe this is just natural attrition in student numbers than any intentional action by MCPS.

Class size is not the same as absolute size. A school can lose 100 kids and class sizes still stay the same. They just hire fewer teachers. The number of teachers they hire is based on the number of kids they have, and they are talking about adjusting this formula.

Not sure what you mean. If the number of kids at a school drops, but the number of classroom teachers stays the same, the average class size will drop. That doesn't mean all class sizes at that school will drop, but you'd expect that trend over time.

As the other poster said, this is how it works: in the spring, principals get their “allocation” number. It’s the number of teachers that their school will get the following year based on their population. If they lose population, then they lose a teacher. Those teachers are involuntarily transferred based on seniority, meaning that they have to go work at another school.

I wonder if there will be enough attrition to support these transfers. The difference between the loss of positions from declining enrollment and adding more to elementary schools is about a 100 position loss. If teachers have tenure where will they go?

MCPS doesn't post turnover data but presumably there are teachers retiring of their own accord every year. MCPS has about 14,000 teachers of which more than half have 20 or more years of experience. It would not surprise me if over 100 of them were retiring every year, actually I'd probably be more suprised if there are fewer than 100 retirements every year.

Sorry, more than half of MCPS teachers have more than 15 years of experience, not more than 20.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reducing elementary class sizes by 1

Reducing elementary class sizes is a good goal, but reducing them by one will have a negligible impact on classrooms. I'd want to see reductions of class size by 3-5 before I clap for Taylor.

So by what amounts to another class? Where are these other classes going to be placed in schools?

If it's reducing class sizes by one, it just means going back to the guidelines in place a couple years ago before they raised them by 1.

With declining enrollment, maybe this is just natural attrition in student numbers than any intentional action by MCPS.

Class size is not the same as absolute size. A school can lose 100 kids and class sizes still stay the same. They just hire fewer teachers. The number of teachers they hire is based on the number of kids they have, and they are talking about adjusting this formula.

Not sure what you mean. If the number of kids at a school drops, but the number of classroom teachers stays the same, the average class size will drop. That doesn't mean all class sizes at that school will drop, but you'd expect that trend over time.

As the other poster said, this is how it works: in the spring, principals get their “allocation” number. It’s the number of teachers that their school will get the following year based on their population. If they lose population, then they lose a teacher. Those teachers are involuntarily transferred based on seniority, meaning that they have to go work at another school.

I wonder if there will be enough attrition to support these transfers. The difference between the loss of positions from declining enrollment and adding more to elementary schools is about a 100 position loss. If teachers have tenure where will they go?

MCPS doesn't post turnover data but presumably there are teachers retiring of their own accord every year. MCPS has about 14,000 teachers of which more than half have 20 or more years of experience. It would not surprise me if over 100 of them were retiring every year, actually I'd probably be more suprised if there are fewer than 100 retirements every year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reducing elementary class sizes by 1

Reducing elementary class sizes is a good goal, but reducing them by one will have a negligible impact on classrooms. I'd want to see reductions of class size by 3-5 before I clap for Taylor.

So by what amounts to another class? Where are these other classes going to be placed in schools?

If it's reducing class sizes by one, it just means going back to the guidelines in place a couple years ago before they raised them by 1.

With declining enrollment, maybe this is just natural attrition in student numbers than any intentional action by MCPS.

Class size is not the same as absolute size. A school can lose 100 kids and class sizes still stay the same. They just hire fewer teachers. The number of teachers they hire is based on the number of kids they have, and they are talking about adjusting this formula.

Not sure what you mean. If the number of kids at a school drops, but the number of classroom teachers stays the same, the average class size will drop. That doesn't mean all class sizes at that school will drop, but you'd expect that trend over time.

As the other poster said, this is how it works: in the spring, principals get their “allocation” number. It’s the number of teachers that their school will get the following year based on their population. If they lose population, then they lose a teacher. Those teachers are involuntarily transferred based on seniority, meaning that they have to go work at another school.

I wonder if there will be enough attrition to support these transfers. The difference between the loss of positions from declining enrollment and adding more to elementary schools is about a 100 position loss. If teachers have tenure where will they go?