APS Budget Process

[Anonymous]

One of the best ways we can support DEI is to lower class sizes. More teachers and student-facing positions. It benefits everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

APS is not cutting staff at Title 1 schools at least not as far as I can tell. Did you actually look at the budget? It's online, go look at the Title 1 schools.

APS didn't follow everything in the B-T report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the best ways we can support DEI is to lower class sizes. More teachers and student-facing positions. It benefits everyone.

No now you’re just using DEI to get what YOU want.

[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.

Amen. Get all those people back in the classroom or let them go elsewhere to look for those jobs. Godspeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amen. Get all those people back in the classroom or let them go elsewhere to look for those jobs. Godspeed.

I honestly think if it wasn’t for Trump coming after DEI so hard they would have reduced more of those positions. they don’t want to look like they’re supporting him or bowing down. The crazy thing is that of some of the DEI trainings. I’ve done with APS They used outside consultants or webinar programs. It wasn’t even our staff teaching. Also, the sessions were terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amen. Get all those people back in the classroom or let them go elsewhere to look for those jobs. Godspeed.

I honestly think if it wasn’t for Trump coming after DEI so hard they would have reduced more of those positions. they don’t want to look like they’re supporting him or bowing down. The crazy thing is that of some of the DEI trainings. I’ve done with APS They used outside consultants or webinar programs. It wasn’t even our staff teaching. Also, the sessions were terrible.

Interesting. I have heard that the office is actually helpful, but I still think we don't need it to be this large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

APS is not cutting staff at Title 1 schools at least not as far as I can tell. Did you actually look at the budget? It's online, go look at the Title 1 schools.

APS didn't follow everything in the B-T report.

It was 400+ pages and staff cuts to align with planning factors were advertised. While I love a good read and have in fact read it, I was wondering if anyone with more detailed knowledge of specific conditions at say, Drew knew what was going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

APS is not cutting staff at Title 1 schools at least not as far as I can tell. Did you actually look at the budget? It's online, go look at the Title 1 schools.

APS didn't follow everything in the B-T report.

It was 400+ pages and staff cuts to align with planning factors were advertised. While I love a good read and have in fact read it, I was wondering if anyone with more detailed knowledge of specific conditions at say, Drew knew what was going on.

Answered my own equation. 1 classroom teacher cut, slight adds to special ed/ESL, for a net loss of about 1 position, compared to a projected growth in 30 students. That’s a cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amen. Get all those people back in the classroom or let them go elsewhere to look for those jobs. Godspeed.

I honestly think if it wasn’t for Trump coming after DEI so hard they would have reduced more of those positions. they don’t want to look like they’re supporting him or bowing down. The crazy thing is that of some of the DEI trainings. I’ve done with APS They used outside consultants or webinar programs. It wasn’t even our staff teaching. Also, the sessions were terrible.

I did not vote for Trump but that is a ridiculous reason to not cut DEI staff. Administrative bloat is not good for students of color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amen. Get all those people back in the classroom or let them go elsewhere to look for those jobs. Godspeed.

I honestly think if it wasn’t for Trump coming after DEI so hard they would have reduced more of those positions. they don’t want to look like they’re supporting him or bowing down. The crazy thing is that of some of the DEI trainings. I’ve done with APS They used outside consultants or webinar programs. It wasn’t even our staff teaching. Also, the sessions were terrible.

I did not vote for Trump but that is a ridiculous reason to not cut DEI staff. Administrative bloat is not good for students of color.

PP I totally agree that some of it is necessary, but we have more than we need

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

APS is not cutting staff at Title 1 schools at least not as far as I can tell. Did you actually look at the budget? It's online, go look at the Title 1 schools.

APS didn't follow everything in the B-T report.

It was 400+ pages and staff cuts to align with planning factors were advertised. While I love a good read and have in fact read it, I was wondering if anyone with more detailed knowledge of specific conditions at say, Drew knew what was going on.

Answered my own equation. 1 classroom teacher cut, slight adds to special ed/ESL, for a net loss of about 1 position, compared to a projected growth in 30 students. That’s a cut.

Okay that's one school. Check a few more. What I saw was that they are about the same. Give or take 1. It's also impossible to tell if that's just because of a change to the current projected student population. Schools' staffing allocations change all the time as student population goes up or down.

Anyways, I don't think a net loss of one classroom teacher at one school is something to get too worked up about.

[Anonymous]

The APS DEI staff is not helpful in anyway. It is a waste of resources to have that many people doing nothing.

You cannot even go to them with potential incidents of racism because they don’t know how to handle them. They are not required to do anything specific at the schools. So they do whatever they want which many times is absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The APS DEI staff is not helpful in anyway. It is a waste of resources to have that many people doing nothing.

You cannot even go to them with potential incidents of racism because they don’t know how to handle them. They are not required to do anything specific at the schools. So they do whatever they want which many times is absolutely nothing.

What were Durans accomplishments when he was FFX DEI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amen. Get all those people back in the classroom or let them go elsewhere to look for those jobs. Godspeed.

I honestly think if it wasn’t for Trump coming after DEI so hard they would have reduced more of those positions. they don’t want to look like they’re supporting him or bowing down. The crazy thing is that of some of the DEI trainings. I’ve done with APS They used outside consultants or webinar programs. It wasn’t even our staff teaching. Also, the sessions were terrible.

I did not vote for Trump but that is a ridiculous reason to not cut DEI staff. Administrative bloat is not good for students of color.

PP I totally agree that some of it is necessary, but we have more than we need

BINGO. What do DEI staff at specific schools even do??

[Anonymous]

$857k for immigrant support, including emotional support. WTF. I am beginning to feel annoyance over the ripoff we have put up with for 40 years with no kids in Arlington. Sure yah yah housing values but WTF.