Montgomery County Public Schools receives about 67 percent of its operating budget from the county, according to Larry Bowers, the school system's chief operating officer. In the last three years, the schools have eliminated 1,200 positions and skipped almost $150 million in pay increases, and this cut would be "even more of a reduction," he said.
He suggested the county find new revenue by raising taxes or not allowing the increase in the
energy tax -- which rose by 150 percent in 2010 -- to expire as scheduled in June 2012. Renewing the energy tax would mean an additional $110 million in revenue.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/2011/06/montco-predicts-27-percent-budget-shortfall-fy13#ixzz1Qnm8pRJs
Oh, what complete bullshit.
ReplyDeleteLarry Bowers, the MCPS Chief Operating Officer, claims that MCPS had reduced 1200 positions over the past three years.
That is so far from the truth it should be criminal for a public official to make such a claim.
FY2012 Budget 20,609 Positions
FY2011 Budget 20,750
FY2010 Actual 20,950
FY2009 Actual 20,767
2008 Actual 20,879
2007 Actual 20,739
Bob Astrove
Lyda,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting. And, thanks to Examiner reporter Rachel Baye for this story. In the same article, MCEA President agrees... "Teachers union President Doug Prouty agreed. "The idea that they think somehow we're going to be able to deal with an additional 2.7 percent cut in local revenues is absurd."
So, the next time you vote for the MCEA Apple Ballot, please remember your fellow taxpayers. Not all of us can afford to have our taxes raised.
And not all of us can afford to go without a raise for what could be the 4th year in row in FY 2013. How many of you, who believe that we can keep cutting the MCPS budget witout any effect on teachers and students, have not had a raise in FOUR years? Tell the truth!
ReplyDelete@Anonymous - Who is "us?" Since your comment is coming from Toronto it looks like SPAM. If you have some connection to Montgomery County public schools then you can sign your name to your comments, just like is required on the Apple blog.
ReplyDeleteRead the paper! Whaere has anonymous BEEN?
ReplyDeleteFolks in private industry and small business have been having frozen wages as well. Our family hasn't had a raise in four years...but our health insurance premiums have increased to $238 a WEEK for a family policy. That's the reality that everyone else across the country has been living with.
Lyda Astrove
It is unfortunate that teachers have been bearing a big part of the burden here. We appreciate what they do, and the good ones, those up late every night grading and refining lessons or communicating with parents, like in any profession, often are tarnished by the behaviors of those not-so-good who are difficult to remove. As a whole, often teachers are the scapegoat for the inefficiencies of the system for which they work.
ReplyDeleteIt is undeniable that class sizes will increase, and their job will be tougher than ever. Still, others in the economy have suffered layoffs and pay freezes; they have had to do more with less, in some instances, with much less. Teachers still have their healthcare, which is more than a lot of people have. So, it's understandable that, in this environment, there may not be much sympathy out here for the pay freeze argument.
What is so disgraceful is the amount of waste embedded in the Politburo-like operations of the system. The fight over the new middle school in the B-CC cluster is a perfect example. The BOE spent resources to establish a long-range planning process; spent resources to amend that process; spent resources to execute that process without really following it; spent resources to produce an erroneous report that wired a result against the communities erroneously excluded from the process; spent resources dealing with delay when the community surrounding the first site selected rose up in arms; spent resources to change its site selection in a bait-and-switch vote with no notice to the second community not represented in the process; is spending money defend legal challenges to its behavior in this affair; and is spending money on a feasibility study for the new middle school site during the pendency of the legal action, which study will not involve the county Planning officials until late in the process.
The Gazette letter you posted hit the nail on the head. These local BOEs act like governments within governments with almost unbridled discretion. Here, they are supported by people constantly re-elected in a one-party-dominant county that operate with little fear of repercussions at the polls.
It’s time to re-visit this structure, to rein-in these BOEs by limiting their discretion to affect matters outside of school grounds without the guidance of the surrounding government structure. In the case of the middle school example, the BOE should be confined to handle what goes on inside the building and on the grounds, but not matters that affect neighborhoods, community development, roads, traffic, and parks.
Finally, perhaps it’s time to put some real personal BOE skin in the game. If the BOE repeatedly is going to ignore laws and regulations, as well as the processes it established for itself, then maybe BOE members should suffer civil penalties for such behavior. What adds insult to injury in matters, like the middle school example, is that we pay tax dollars that fund these erroneous decisions, and when the erroneous decisions are challenged, we pay tax dollars fund the BOE’s legal defense. This insanity has to end.
Anonymous @9:30am, those of us in the private sector will not have a pension; nor will we have health insurance after retirement. We are on our own. Every penny counts during our working years. Also, we get usually 15 days per year to use either as vacation or sick leave. So, is this what you want? Is this what teachers want? This is a discussion I remember from another exchange on this blog. What do the teachers want? If this is what you want, renumeration that is the same as we in the private sector receive, I am pretty sure the CoCouncil and CoExec would love to hear that. Then the taxpayers would be relieved of subsidizing you after your retirement, and you would not receive any health insurance post-retirement. Please let us know. Is this what teachers really want?
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you what I wanted- I wanted a matching contribution from the state or mcps or whomever toward my retirement- one that has my name on it. Now that I'm leaving MCPS after ten years- I have the opportunity to take 22 grand now or get $850 a month when I turn 62 (I'm currently 34). That 850 a month sounds like a great supplement now- but who knows what it will be worth in real terms 30 years from today (it is not adjusted for inflation). This makes it a complete crap shoot. The 22 grand is what I personally contributed to the pension system... a fraction of what I could have taken away with me under a defined contribution system (let's call it 30%).
ReplyDeleteThe current system is backloaded benefitting only those near retirement. Imagine if the pesnion system were to be underfunded... how is this remedied in a defined benefit backloaded system? They charge FUTURE teachers more to make up the difference so those close to retirement benefit. This gets the tacit approval of the union leaders who need to keep their most active members- those closest to retirement or those already retired- happy. It is now in my best interest to return to Maryland when I am 60 years old and work for 3 years. My pension will be SIGNIFICANTLY higher if I do that... doesn't make any sense- but that's the way we do it.
A defined benefit *could* work if the process wasn't polluted by politics. Since this is not possible- a defined contribution makes much more sense- for most teachers as well as taxpayers (of which teachers are a part).
How many 22 year olds are ready to commit to 30 years of teaching from day 1? This is what it will take to realize the true benefits of a defined benefit system (I figure 20 years or so is the break even point where someone would truly benefit from defined benefit as opposed to defined contribution).
In terms of what teachers want- let me explain to you in part- what I want.
I want people to appreciate what I do. I want a free and healthy and reasonably tasting lunch (litterally). I want access to fitness facilities. One with a treadmill and windows (you know- for fresh air)! I want thank you notes. I want a work environment where people aren't complaining about their job and giving their "bosses" (who can't fire or promote them) a hard time if they ask them to attend a meeting or read a piece of professional literature. I want a free cup of coffee in the morning. I'll even make it myself. I want people to call me "sir" when I walk down the hallway- not because I need the illusion of power or control- but because it would be a nice deposit in my mental bank. I want smaller class sizes. You know- so that it actually makes sense to have a daily 30 second conversation with each of my students. And I want to be able to tell students to tuck their shirt in. I want a higher salary- but would take less if I could have the benefits listed above.
Mike McCabe--Actually many of us nearing retirement don't benefit as much as teachers your age who plan to remain in the profession. Those of us with years in the MD pension plan prior to 1998 will receive a smaller percentage of our average final compensation than those your age who stick it out. That is a fact. Our defined benefit plan uses a multiplier of 1.8 applied to those years of service from 1998 on to determine benefits. Those years of service prior to 1998 are determined by a multiplier of 1.2. Those years prior to 1998 are when the MD pension plan ranked dead last in the US. I have 35 years in the system. My pension is severely impacted by those 22 years I taught between 1976 and 1998. If I were hired in 1998 and taught for 35 years, my pension would be at least 15% of my average final compensation higher than it will be under my current circumstances. Those hired after 7/1/11 will have a multiplier of 1.5 used to calculate their benefits. They will pay more for less benefits than most teachers already in the system. So while younger teachers may be paying more to subsidize older teachers (who are also paying the same percentage), those older teachers may actually be receiving a smaller benefit. One has to understand the history of the retirement/pension plans and the changes that have occurred since the late 1970's.
ReplyDeleteI'm not complaining--I understand that some people in the private sector receive a lot less. Some also receive more.
I do agree with your last paragraph. I can live without the pay increase if I have to. But it would be nice to receive a little appreciation for the fact that I haven't allowed my job performance to suffer even though I have to find ways to supplement my income.
--Vicki E.
Vicki- I agree that the system installed after 1998 is better than that prior in terms of benefits for retirees.
ReplyDeleteIf I were 62 and retired today- 850 bucks a month would be great. Maybe too great for 10 years of service. However- because I'm not 62 that 850 bucks has very limited value.
The state pension system- no matter which system it is- values longevity and age. When you have the wrong incentives you will get undesired results.
"renumeration" the same as those of us in the private sector receive--you've got to be kidding. I'll gladly take what the private sector pays for equivalent education (2 masters degrees), experience (27 years), and hours worked (countless uncompensated hours every week), if it includes everything the private sector gets, including bonuses, a decent place to work, including air conditioning that works, secretarial help for clerical work, etc. I love my job and I don't complain about it, but please, let's get real. The secure pension and health benefits public sector workers have gotten for a long time are intended to make up for the lower pay we get. That has been true for a very long time, such as when my father in 1962 when my father chose government work over a private sector job that paid significantly more, because he knew the pension was better. And yes, the pay is lower, if you compare like jobs and like qualifications. If you think I could not make more money in the private sector, you are sadly mistaken. I don't want to work In the private sector because I love what I do and I think it is an appropriate and proper function of government to provide a free public education. But I'm sick of the hostility from your group, and others, toward teachers who simply ask for decent compensation and for promises to be kept. Why a coalition of parents would be so hostile to teachers in one of the best school systems in the country is beyond me. But, I'm sure this comment, like many others, will never see the light of day. I feel sorry for people who are so bitter, small-minded, and angry as you appear to be.
ReplyDeleteThe 9:45 anonymous (of course) comment was in the SPAM folder for this blog. The Google spam filter calls 'em like it sees 'em.
ReplyDeleteApparently, this anonymous person (of unknown profession) has a problem with democracy and open debate of issues, including taxes and how they are collected and spent. This person is also apparently very out of touch with the private sector. This isn't your father's 1962.
(Note that secretarial positions have mostly disappeared and been replaced by managerial assistants who handle work for the office and not just one person.)
This just in...Unemployment rose to 9.2 percent in June as hiring stalls
ReplyDeletehttp://thedailyrecord.com/2011/07/08/unemployment-rose-to-9-2-percent-in-june-as-hiring-stalls/
I am anonymous 9:45 and I will let my comments stand on their own. If you don't want anonymous comments, don't allow them on your blog. I choose to remain anonymous for my own reasons. It is clear from my comments that I am a teacher. I teach in MCPS and I have for 12 years. I have no problem with debate on issues; I just happen to think your perspective is wrong, and the general approach of your group is not only wrong but counterproductive in the long run for your own group's stated goals. I am very familiar with the private sector--like there are lots of professionals out there making their own copies--right. Your response does not deal with the substance of my comments at all about what teachers want--fair compensation and promises kept. The private sector is not the same as the public sector, yet you want to pick and choose the ways you want them to be the same, and ignore the others. You get what you pay for. As MCPS declines over time, as the work of teachers continues to be denigrated by your group and many others, this will be borne out for all to see. I know many teachers who are looking to leave the profession, and if I were a career changer today, as I was 12 years ago, I would not go into teaching in today's environment. And the word is "remuneration."
ReplyDelete@12:16 Nothing is clear from your comments. We have already seen MCPS intentionally use a fake parent to comment on parent advocacy. Without a name, your comments mean nothing.
ReplyDeleteClearly you have no idea what goes on in the private sector. Yes, professionals make their own copies when needed. They do what is needed to get their jobs done.
You get what you pay for? Well then taxpayers have must have paid for an awesome school system! The MCPS budget has DOUBLED in the last 12 years while enrollment has inched up AND down.
The work of the teachers? The work of the teachers union is to sit at the secret budget table and hand out huge salaries and perks to MCPS administrators and a whole team of consultants. That's what Montgomery County teachers support. That's what you have agreed to protect.
Want some transparency? Push your chair back from the MCPS secret budget table and let's talk about the MCPS budget in PUBLIC.
By the way, check in with the 6,500 employees that Lockheed Martin (Bethesda HQ) just laid off this week and see how they feel about the economyhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576456432443830652.html in Montgomery County.
And the word is REALITY.
Correction - that would be CHAIRS.
ReplyDeleteThe teachers' union has TWO seats at the secret MCPS budget table.
Want to talk about the MCPS budget? Push your CHAIRS back from the table and stand up.
Just remember, you get what you pay for.
ReplyDeleteMy wife left MCPS this year for a job that's paying $30k more. She was with the county 14 years, 4.0 MA from Johns Hopkins, nationally certified, worked at least 10 hours a day and 6 hours on Saturdays, never used personal leave because she said there aren't enough hours as it was. She hates that she's no longer teaching, but we just couldn't afford another year of stagnant salary, we still have about $85k in school loans to pay and now have two kids in daycare. My wife is the third top teacher in her old school to have left in the past two years to take better jobs elsewhere.
I'm not saying the county should raise taxes to afford to pay the contractually promised raises, only, that it's a fact the best and brightest will leave over time.
@12:05 - That's what your wife's union wanted. They want to protect massive increases for administrators and push out teachers. She voted for the Apple leaders and got what she voted for.
ReplyDeleteWe are told that the Apple organization is a democratically run group, supported by classroom teachers. That means that teachers are happy with the way the MCPS budget is being divided up to allow administrators to receive increases, travel, dinners and perks while teachers are "stagnant" - their choice.
Why should taxpayers pay more for the choices made by the teachers' union? There's plenty of money in the MCPS budget to pay teachers - choice is to pay admins the perks.
Janis, did you know that the teachers have their own union, administration has its own union and support personal have their own union? I am only clarifying because your earlier comment indicated you were unclear on this point. MCEA has nothing to do with administrative salary increases- the administrators union deal with that. To say that the teacher's union wants to protect massive increases for administrators and push teachers is not only incorrect...it just doesn't make any sense.
ReplyDelete@Ireland - You must live in a bubble. Nothing unclear at all about my comments.
ReplyDeleteThe teachers union is AT the secret MCPS budget table.
They sit and participate in the creation of the budget. The administrators could NOT get their salary increases and perks without the consent of the teachers union! That's how the Promethean Boards were purchased while teachers gave up COLAs. Trades are made, deals are cut. Silence is obtained.
The teachers union is complicit in these private negotiations.
There are no separate budgets. There is just ONE and all of the money is there to be divided up as the participants at the budget table decide. Their choice.
If you think the teachers union doesn't support the perks for administrators then point to ONE PIECE of public testimony from the Apple union folks objecting to the MCPS Operating funds that go to administrator perks, raises and salaries - like personal unaudited credit cards, for example. The existence of these credit cards has been documented and the bills are in the millions. The position of the Apple union on these unaudited expenditures is...?
Thanks for the e-mail. So far, zip on the Apple folks speaking out about MCPS budget perks for administrators.
ReplyDeleteTime for the Apple folks to step up and take responsibility for their actions. They've made the MCPS Operating budget what it is today - trips, perks, credit cards, no bid contracts and all.
The Apple gang got exactly what they wanted. Voters elected the candidates they were told to vote for by the big red Apple.
The MCPS budget is exactly what the Apple wanted.
Got a complaint about the MCPS budget? Take it up with the union leaders who sit at the MCPS secret budget table and create the document.
Don't tell voters to vote for the Apple and then try and complain about the results.
Got a comment for this blog? Stand up for your opinion and sign your name. Time to get serious about the MCPS budget.
You comment was not unclear...your understanding of the negotiation process it what I was referring too. My interpretation of your comments, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that you seem to feel that the two MCEA members sitting at the budget negotiating table have absolute and total control over how the MCPS budget is spent. That everything that comes out of those negotiations is exactly what the teachers want. How many people have a seat at the budget table? You mention the two seats MCEA has. Two seats out of how many? I have often heard you lament the fact that these budget negotiations are done in secret...so how do you know who wanted what, who got what they wanted and who didn't? What is your evidence that the outcome of the budget negotiations were controlled by MCEA; that they were exactly what MCEA wanted? I am really and truly not trying to be a smart alec (though I am curious to see whether you are capable of responding to my inquiry without sarcasm and insults)...I'd just like to know what has lead you to the conclusion that MCEA has such total control over the MCPS budget process.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't get much clearer than this. Question is, why is Prouty telling this to the New York Times yet his local members seem to be clueless about his involvement in setting the MCPS budget?
ReplyDeletePROUTY: WE FORMULATE THE BUDGET
BUDGET COMMITTEE: HALF OF MEMBERS ARE UNIONS
...Five years ago, the district [MCPS] created a budget committee, half of whose members belonged to unions. Last year, when Larry Bowers, the district’s [MCPS'] finance director, said the schools could not afford a scheduled 5.3 percent raise, the teachers’ union agreed. “Saved us $89 million,” Mr. Bowers said.
Mr. Prouty, the union president, said he knew Mr. Bowers was telling the truth. “We formulate the budget; we know where the money is, which makes us much more trusting,” said Mr. Prouty, whose members also agreed to forgo a raise next year.
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2011/06/mcea-we-formulate-budget-we-know-where.html
Eating on the taxpayer's tab:
ReplyDelete"Weast’s call to collaboration was answered by the three unions, including MCEA, Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel (MCAASP), and the Service Employees International Union Local 500 (SEIU). All three invested in developing personal relationships through regular breakfast and lunch meetings."
That's why a former union leader said she had eaten at Il Pizzico 70 times. Lots of lunches!
ReplyDelete