APS Budget Process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And stop saying the kids are “getting screwed” because they program is being replicated in a new location. They are not losing any services. Get a hold of yourself!

The IS parents think their kids will be screwed because they will be in classes with, gasp, brown kids. Oh the horror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't make it up. It's a fact that we have space in our elementary schools, and either we use it, or we're going to need to close a school. That's really disruptive too. Lots of other special needs preschoolers are educated in our elementary schools. Why are 40 odd preschoolers so special that it won't work for them too? It's not like they will never go to elementary school. They just will go a year earlier than they would have. What's the big deal? No one has explained to me why APS can't educate 40 odd preschool kids in the elementary schools when it literally already does this. Or do you not want your kid to be with the VPI kids?

You made it up. These kids are PreK— they will still go to the elementary schools you just said would close if a disabled child gets a better environment for an additional year. It’s truly sick how much you want to take things from these kids.

What makes this environment “better”? There is a peer model program at my neighborhood elementary school. But the peers are income-qualified. Is that it? Say it.

What makes it better is exactly the reason the parents selected it in the first place over their neighborhood school: they think it’s a better environment for their kid. Exactly like traditional, exactly like immersion, exactly like expeditionary. If you think only the parents of Gen Ed kids deserve any choice, say so.

But they have the same peer model program elsewhere at neighborhood schools, currently serving other people’s children. The neighborhood elementary schools do not offer the immersion, expeditionary, etc. programs. So you’re comparing apples and wombats.

And not even neighborhood school offers peer model. So what do you want to do with the kids whose schools don’t offer it? Or who are slated for Cardinal? Just too bad so sad at least only the disabled preschoolers get screwed and no one you really care about?

I don't get your point. All the kids in IS go to one building now, no matter how far it is from their homes. But now your problem is that they may go to a different school than the one in their neighborhood for preschool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And stop saying the kids are “getting screwed” because they program is being replicated in a new location. They are not losing any services. Get a hold of yourself!

They are losing their school, their teachers, and their program is not replicated in every other school. So yes, they’re getting screwed.

You can be fine with it, but own that you’re expecting 40 disabled preschoolers to be the ones to lose out.

How is the program not replicated in the elementary schools? What part of it is different in IS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of vulnerable students, where is the outrage at increasing class sizes at Title 1 schools when federal funding is likely also being slashed?

Everyone is getting less than, so I don’t want to hear another word about this one program and the students that can be served perfectly well at other existing programs. Maybe then you’ll also care that those schools are perpetually underfunded relative to their needs.

There isn't outrage because they are not increasing T1 class sizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They would have to close an elementary school if they don’t move IS into elementary schools. Makes sense to me to use space in our own buildings for our pre k kids instead of paying tuition for them to attend the children’s school which is basically a private daycare.

Says who?

They already tried to close Nottingham and there was an article just today about excess capacity. I'm sorry IS has to go, but I don't see how APS can justify paying for students to be in a private daycare when we have seats sitting empty in our schools.

https://www.arlnow.com/2025/03/17/extra-elementary-school-seats-might-someday-put-arlington-facilities-on-chopping-block/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJFaXNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHYTUqfSuESoRscv8WyQ1uzVJwNhdL0sol6cfKlYSDoV5uAupgzS_hKvWQg_aem_oV6lN8s5PFKqgqwZOkT8pQ

So…you just made it up that there’s any choice between IS and any other elementary school. Cool.

APS justifies putting students in expensive programs across the county— immersion, traditional, etc, why are disabled pre-K students for 600,000 the ones you want to hurt?

Hurt? Take a seat. Your kid will still get their pre-k, just in a different building. Why should APS pay TUITION to a private daycare for YOUR kid? If you want private daycare, pay for it, just like others have to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They would have to close an elementary school if they don’t move IS into elementary schools. Makes sense to me to use space in our own buildings for our pre k kids instead of paying tuition for them to attend the children’s school which is basically a private daycare.

Says who?

They already tried to close Nottingham and there was an article just today about excess capacity. I'm sorry IS has to go, but I don't see how APS can justify paying for students to be in a private daycare when we have seats sitting empty in our schools.

https://www.arlnow.com/2025/03/17/extra-elementary-school-seats-might-someday-put-arlington-facilities-on-chopping-block/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJFaXNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHYTUqfSuESoRscv8WyQ1uzVJwNhdL0sol6cfKlYSDoV5uAupgzS_hKvWQg_aem_oV6lN8s5PFKqgqwZOkT8pQ

So…you just made it up that there’s any choice between IS and any other elementary school. Cool.

APS justifies putting students in expensive programs across the county— immersion, traditional, etc, why are disabled pre-K students for 600,000 the ones you want to hurt?

the cost of those programs is lower and serves more than 10 times the students

And we're not being charged tuition/rent for space by a private daycare. If the Children's School wants to keep IS so badly, why don't they stop charging APS for the space? IS parents could try negotiating that.

It sounds like the IS helps subsidize the Children’s School operations. That’s probably the real issue underneath the handwringing. It’s more sympathetic to act like disabled toddlers aren’t going to be offered services in a different location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They would have to close an elementary school if they don’t move IS into elementary schools. Makes sense to me to use space in our own buildings for our pre k kids instead of paying tuition for them to attend the children’s school which is basically a private daycare.

Says who?

They already tried to close Nottingham and there was an article just today about excess capacity. I'm sorry IS has to go, but I don't see how APS can justify paying for students to be in a private daycare when we have seats sitting empty in our schools.

https://www.arlnow.com/2025/03/17/extra-elementary-school-seats-might-someday-put-arlington-facilities-on-chopping-block/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJFaXNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHYTUqfSuESoRscv8WyQ1uzVJwNhdL0sol6cfKlYSDoV5uAupgzS_hKvWQg_aem_oV6lN8s5PFKqgqwZOkT8pQ

So…you just made it up that there’s any choice between IS and any other elementary school. Cool.

APS justifies putting students in expensive programs across the county— immersion, traditional, etc, why are disabled pre-K students for 600,000 the ones you want to hurt?

the cost of those programs is lower and serves more than 10 times the students

And we're not being charged tuition/rent for space by a private daycare. If the Children's School wants to keep IS so badly, why don't they stop charging APS for the space? IS parents could try negotiating that.

It sounds like the IS helps subsidize the Children’s School operations. That’s probably the real issue underneath the handwringing. It’s more sympathetic to act like disabled toddlers aren’t going to be offered services in a different location.

Right? I get that the parents don't want to move. Change is hard. But it's insane for APS to pay tuition to a private daycare for 40 kids while we have EMPTY SPACE in our own buildings. It's not like the programs are being cut, they will just happen in a different building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of vulnerable students, where is the outrage at increasing class sizes at Title 1 schools when federal funding is likely also being slashed?

Everyone is getting less than, so I don’t want to hear another word about this one program and the students that can be served perfectly well at other existing programs. Maybe then you’ll also care that those schools are perpetually underfunded relative to their needs.

There isn't outrage because they are not increasing T1 class sizes.

An APS teacher made this claim on FB. That’s where I got this info. Glad to hear it’s a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of vulnerable students, where is the outrage at increasing class sizes at Title 1 schools when federal funding is likely also being slashed?

Everyone is getting less than, so I don’t want to hear another word about this one program and the students that can be served perfectly well at other existing programs. Maybe then you’ll also care that those schools are perpetually underfunded relative to their needs.

There isn't outrage because they are not increasing T1 class sizes.

An APS teacher made this claim on FB. That’s where I got this info. Glad to hear it’s a mistake.

I think you misread that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Student facing positions must be prioritized. That’s it.

Just because you don't see what someone does doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. You sound like Elon Musk.

You sound like someone who sits in a cubical at Syphax all day. You recently got three extra weeks of vacation. You’re like a Director, or a Chief, a Coordinator, or maybe a Supervisor. Maybe a “specialist”? Your assistant has an assistant. I’m a teacher who emails you five separate times about the same thing (all on my “lunch” break) and can never get a response from you because I don’t matter too much, but I’m the one working with kids, and the kids are supposed to be why you’re there. So no… I don’t need you.

I promise you I do not work at Syphax, and I do not have one of those fancy titles. But I question your assumption that just because it's a lot of money or a big number of positions must mean it's bloat. Name the specific positions that don't do anything and then let's talk.

They get months of paid vacation, unlike teachers. Have them work during that time and reduce the overall number of positions.

How can you argue that student-facing positions aren’t the priority?

If teachers can be told to do more with fewer resources, admin can be given the same line.

This is right from APE.

Is it? Who cares? We happen to agree. Student-facing positions are the priority.

I'm not Republican, but the DEI staff at central office is very big for an issue that is mostly at the schools and handled by school counselors and administration.

The chief academic office also appears bloated.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/2024/09/APS-Organizational-Chart-24-25.pdf

It’s true. DEI hasn’t done much for me as a classroom teacher at all. One training, once a year. And it was just ok. I get it about implicit bias already. Lots and lots of chiefs- more so than surrounding systems that are larger, percentage wise.

Honestly, I’d be fine with eliminating all the many, overpaid DEI positions and using the money to hire more teachers. Classroom teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of vulnerable students, where is the outrage at increasing class sizes at Title 1 schools when federal funding is likely also being slashed?

Everyone is getting less than, so I don’t want to hear another word about this one program and the students that can be served perfectly well at other existing programs. Maybe then you’ll also care that those schools are perpetually underfunded relative to their needs.

There isn't outrage because they are not increasing T1 class sizes.

An APS teacher made this claim on FB. That’s where I got this info. Glad to hear it’s a mistake.

Is it? They are calling for cutting staff to better align with class size planning factors. Is there an exception that Title 1 schools that they have lower class size planning factors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Student facing positions must be prioritized. That’s it.

Just because you don't see what someone does doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. You sound like Elon Musk.

You sound like someone who sits in a cubical at Syphax all day. You recently got three extra weeks of vacation. You’re like a Director, or a Chief, a Coordinator, or maybe a Supervisor. Maybe a “specialist”? Your assistant has an assistant. I’m a teacher who emails you five separate times about the same thing (all on my “lunch” break) and can never get a response from you because I don’t matter too much, but I’m the one working with kids, and the kids are supposed to be why you’re there. So no… I don’t need you.

I promise you I do not work at Syphax, and I do not have one of those fancy titles. But I question your assumption that just because it's a lot of money or a big number of positions must mean it's bloat. Name the specific positions that don't do anything and then let's talk.

They get months of paid vacation, unlike teachers. Have them work during that time and reduce the overall number of positions.

How can you argue that student-facing positions aren’t the priority?

If teachers can be told to do more with fewer resources, admin can be given the same line.

This is right from APE.

Is it? Who cares? We happen to agree. Student-facing positions are the priority.

I'm not Republican, but the DEI staff at central office is very big for an issue that is mostly at the schools and handled by school counselors and administration.

The chief academic office also appears bloated.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/2024/09/APS-Organizational-Chart-24-25.pdf

It’s true. DEI hasn’t done much for me as a classroom teacher at all. One training, once a year. And it was just ok. I get it about implicit bias already. Lots and lots of chiefs- more so than surrounding systems that are larger, percentage wise.

Honestly, I’d be fine with eliminating all the many, overpaid DEI positions and using the money to hire more teachers. Classroom teachers.

+1. There seems to be a whole lot of DEI staff and I’m not sure what they are adding. It seems like in a district of this size one person and an admin out to be plenty to roll out any training that is needed for front line staff who actually work with children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of vulnerable students, where is the outrage at increasing class sizes at Title 1 schools when federal funding is likely also being slashed?

Everyone is getting less than, so I don’t want to hear another word about this one program and the students that can be served perfectly well at other existing programs. Maybe then you’ll also care that those schools are perpetually underfunded relative to their needs.

There isn't outrage because they are not increasing T1 class sizes.

An APS teacher made this claim on FB. That’s where I got this info. Glad to hear it’s a mistake.

Is it? They are calling for cutting staff to better align with class size planning factors. Is there an exception that Title 1 schools that they have lower class size planning factors?

Who is they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Student facing positions must be prioritized. That’s it.

Just because you don't see what someone does doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. You sound like Elon Musk.

You sound like someone who sits in a cubical at Syphax all day. You recently got three extra weeks of vacation. You’re like a Director, or a Chief, a Coordinator, or maybe a Supervisor. Maybe a “specialist”? Your assistant has an assistant. I’m a teacher who emails you five separate times about the same thing (all on my “lunch” break) and can never get a response from you because I don’t matter too much, but I’m the one working with kids, and the kids are supposed to be why you’re there. So no… I don’t need you.

I promise you I do not work at Syphax, and I do not have one of those fancy titles. But I question your assumption that just because it's a lot of money or a big number of positions must mean it's bloat. Name the specific positions that don't do anything and then let's talk.

They get months of paid vacation, unlike teachers. Have them work during that time and reduce the overall number of positions.

How can you argue that student-facing positions aren’t the priority?

If teachers can be told to do more with fewer resources, admin can be given the same line.

This is right from APE.

Is it? Who cares? We happen to agree. Student-facing positions are the priority.

I'm not Republican, but the DEI staff at central office is very big for an issue that is mostly at the schools and handled by school counselors and administration.

The chief academic office also appears bloated.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/2024/09/APS-Organizational-Chart-24-25.pdf

It’s true. DEI hasn’t done much for me as a classroom teacher at all. One training, once a year. And it was just ok. I get it about implicit bias already. Lots and lots of chiefs- more so than surrounding systems that are larger, percentage wise.

Honestly, I’d be fine with eliminating all the many, overpaid DEI positions and using the money to hire more teachers. Classroom teachers.

+1. There seems to be a whole lot of DEI staff and I’m not sure what they are adding. It seems like in a district of this size one person and an admin out to be plenty to roll out any training that is needed for front line staff who actually work with children.

I could get behind this. I'm for DEI, so let's keep something, but how many people do we need doing it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of vulnerable students, where is the outrage at increasing class sizes at Title 1 schools when federal funding is likely also being slashed?

Everyone is getting less than, so I don’t want to hear another word about this one program and the students that can be served perfectly well at other existing programs. Maybe then you’ll also care that those schools are perpetually underfunded relative to their needs.

There isn't outrage because they are not increasing T1 class sizes.

An APS teacher made this claim on FB. That’s where I got this info. Glad to hear it’s a mistake.

Is it? They are calling for cutting staff to better align with class size planning factors. Is there an exception that Title 1 schools that they have lower class size planning factors?

Who is they?

They is “APS”, based on the recommendations of the Baker Tilly report.