Wednesday, February 18, 2015

$10 million cut from Starr’s original proposal

The Montgomery County school board has approved a fiscal 2016 operating budget $10.2 million lower than what Superintendent Joshua P. Starr proposed in December.
The county school system’s proposed operating budget for next year now stands at $2.39 billion. The budget moves next to Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett and the Montgomery County Council for approval...

...Under the revised budget, the school system would cut $1.8 million, mostly by reducing and eliminating staff positions. These cuts deepen similar ones Starr had already proposed, meaning the loss of another 24 full-time equivalent positions.

Those positions include 17 building service worker positions, amounting to about $708,500; a professional growth consultant, costing $124,100; an instructional specialist involved in professional development, costing $144,296; and a consulting teacher position, costing about $105,000.


  1. Now examine the need for many administrators be fair a problem in school districts all over. The main goal of many top administrators and even lower level, at the peak of their career, is a golden parachute for their pensions. I have observed. this and many have been verbal about it over the years I have lived. Again, this is true in many areas but this one is the one being discussed. One administration official can be replaced by better rooms and equipment and an additional talented special ed. teacher which this district sorely can use.

  2. They need to audit to see if all of these programs are necessary. Are they actually providing results? Why so many director positions? MCPS is throwing away money. Three and four directors being paid at principal salaries are not needed to supervise 10-15 people. Principals should be insulted that they supervise entire buildings and some directors sit behind a desk all day posting to twitter.

    Professional development that takes teachers out of their buildings for days interrupts student learning and adds to the budget by forcing teachers to use costly substitutes. Teachers don't want to be away from their students but are forced to attend so that some central office hack can keep a job.

    1. Some of the PD *is* necessary: When Curriculum 2.0 was being rolled out, it was being delivered in some cases one marking period at a time - the week BEFORE the next marking period! I substituted a couple of times for teachers getting that last-minute PD day for the next 9 weeks of a brand-new curriculum.... That wasn't a situation where "some Central Office hack" was trying to keep a job; that was so teachers weren't handed a new curriculum with zero training.

      On the other hand, if teachers are getting PD outside regular school hours, they're getting paid for those days, which likely costs more than hiring subs and not adding any more teacher days. In that case the "only" real issue is the disruption of classroom instruction; no matter how good the lesson plans (which take plenty of teacher time to write out - I've written them as a teacher and followed them as a substitute) and no matter how good the sub, it's still a disruption. :-(


If your comment does not appear in 24 hours, please send your comment directly to our e-mail address:
parentscoalitionmc AT