APS Board & Duran Proposing to Dissolve Integration Station

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are the IS kids integrated with TCS all day or for a portion of the day?

Toddlers attend 5 hours and 3-5 year old preschoolers attend 7:50-2:40. Same hours as any other APS early childhood program. For IS, it is a fully integrated program for all rooms except the Mini-MIPA (preschool autism class) and self-contained 3-5 class; those classes would suffer from the cut especially since they push in and out of the general education classes throughout their day (something not really implemented anywhere else in APS to the same extent).

So, maybe it’s not AS perfect, but it’s still being done.

Now, let’s discuss how things are less than ideal in my 6th grader’s science class that hasn’t had a teacher all year.

With funds spread so thin, everyone must make sacrifices. The pre-k students will still get to go to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m sorry your program is on the chopping block. But I’m not understanding why the school-based options will not serve your needs. Unfortunately we are looking at a lot less ideal options for everyone across the board and I’m not sure this is worth further teaching staff cuts or higher class sizes for older kids.

The school-based options pose a few challenges:
(1) APS leadership has yet to identify which sites the classes would relocate to. Which means we have no idea, nor does Dr. Mann, if there is actually enough capacity across APS schools to accommodate the number of students currently attending the program.
(2) If APS manages to relocate all the classes, the CPP program is already under-enrolled for peers needed. APS cannot guarantee that it will have community peers for all these classes. If students who previously attended or would have attended IS no longer are with their typically developing peers, then they would be in a self-contained environment. The move would be regressive since these students would no longer have access to or benefit from exposure to these peers.
(3) The Mini-MIPA (the preschool autism class) and self-contained 3-5 class would be the greatest programs to suffer. These are students who are not quite ready for a full-day of integration in a general education environment, but have access to these opportunities during their day in the IS program by pushing into the general education TCS classrooms.

Moreover, the budget study that APS paid bakertilly claims it would save $1 million. However, that number isn’t accurate when accounting for overhead that would still need to be covered regardless - such as staff salaries, benefits, and transportation. APS and the study also do not specify how much federal funds are provided per student to attend. At least currently, under IDEA, schools should receive direct funding per student with special education services. Even if the Department of Education is disbanded, this law would still be in effect.

So… We aren’t sure there is space, but you’re also concerned the program is under-enrolled?

Look, there’s what’s ideal, and then there’s real life. I’d love to keep the IS program as-is, but if it means making K-12 class sizes even bigger (they’re already huge in some schools!), then no, this pre-k program needs to be dissolved and the students need to be absorbed into already-existing pre-k classes. (No increase in overhead, as they already have teachers. And, you already suggested they’re under-enrolled.)

NP there have been staffing challenges this year with Pre-K sped teachers. Reassigning IS teachers fills those vacancies. If lack of CPP peer models is an issue they can utilize VPI/Montessori peers as is done in other parts of the county. It’s hard to lose a program but this is a logical choice.

[Anonymous]

So… We aren’t sure there is space, but you’re also concerned the program is under-enrolled?

Look, there’s what’s ideal, and then there’s real life. I’d love to keep the IS program as-is, but if it means making K-12 class sizes even bigger (they’re already huge in some schools!), then no, this pre-k program needs to be dissolved and the students need to be absorbed into already-existing pre-k classes. (No increase in overhead, as they already have teachers. And, you already suggested they’re under-enrolled.)

To be clear, it’s the community peers who are under-enrolled. Students receiving special education services are in those classes. APS would not be sending IS students to existing classes. They are talking about moving the classes out of IS into new rooms within APS schools IN ADDITION to the already existing CPP classes. So MORE CPP classes.

The questions lie: (1) where is the space to add MORE CPP classes to APS schools that are at capacity; (2) how will APS be able to say that these students are getting an inclusive general education education if there are already not enough peers for the existing classes? (Again, talking about the peers, not students receiving special education services!) There is a cap in Virginia for caseloads. It would be illegal to have more students with special education services per class than the cap. (3) How is APS realistically saving money if they still need to serve IS students in additional classes with the existing staff? When the bulk of the $1 million is to staff salaries, benefits, transportation (which students are entitled to as well), etc.?

[Anonymous]

To those opposed to eliminating IS:

What would you propose instead?

Raising K-12 class sizes even more?

[Anonymous]

NP there have been staffing challenges this year with Pre-K sped teachers. Reassigning IS teachers fills those vacancies. If lack of CPP peer models is an issue they can utilize VPI/Montessori peers as is done in other parts of the county. It’s hard to lose a program but this is a logical choice.

This wouldn’t solve the staffing problem. We would not fill vacancies. Our students are still entitled to an education under IDEA, so they aren’t going anywhere, nor are the other students receiving special education services in the county. There is a cap in Virginia for special education caseloads; it would be illegal to fill classes overcapacity. And again, if a class is filled with special education students, and less than 50% community peers, it would be a self-contained class and a worse option than what IS offers.

Dr. Mann specifically said our classes would convert to CPP. No mention of co-teaching models with existing VPI/Montessori classes. VPI is also under-enrolled right now, so it wouldn’t even be feasible to suggest APS expand co-teaching models with additional co-taught classes with VPI. It is a great alternative idea but unfortunately their enrollment numbers would not be able to make that work at this time!

[Anonymous]

To those opposed to eliminating IS:

What would you propose instead?

Raising K-12 class sizes even more?

We’re arguing that this isn’t going to save APS money. It would eliminate an exceptional program to disperse us around the county for a worse option. So the $1 million would still be spent. But instead of spending it in one site, it would be spent in classes around the county.

K-12 students aren’t going anywhere. But neither are students receiving early intervention services with APS. APS is mandated to serve them too. So our students matter just as much as K-12.

Also, from a cost-benefit analysis: if our students make significant progress in their current placement, then they are more likely to attend general education in K-12. If our students were to be moved self-contained and make significantly less progress, we would need to send them to special education classes in K-12 potentially. So if you are worried about K-12, APS would not be expanding general education classes with lower enrollment in a few years, but having to also look for room for self-contained K-12 rooms. IN ADDITION to all the rooms IS classes would be taking space in! Which we aren’t even sure APS has room for those!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP there have been staffing challenges this year with Pre-K sped teachers. Reassigning IS teachers fills those vacancies. If lack of CPP peer models is an issue they can utilize VPI/Montessori peers as is done in other parts of the county. It’s hard to lose a program but this is a logical choice.

This wouldn’t solve the staffing problem. We would not fill vacancies. Our students are still entitled to an education under IDEA, so they aren’t going anywhere, nor are the other students receiving special education services in the county. There is a cap in Virginia for special education caseloads; it would be illegal to fill classes overcapacity. And again, if a class is filled with special education students, and less than 50% community peers, it would be a self-contained class and a worse option than what IS offers.

Dr. Mann specifically said our classes would convert to CPP. No mention of co-teaching models with existing VPI/Montessori classes. VPI is also under-enrolled right now, so it wouldn’t even be feasible to suggest APS expand co-teaching models with additional co-taught classes with VPI. It is a great alternative idea but unfortunately their enrollment numbers would not be able to make that work at this time!

IS teachers would be surplussed into those vacancies. I get you’re upset about the program ending but I think you are throwing up roadblocks that don’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

To those opposed to eliminating IS:

What would you propose instead?

Raising K-12 class sizes even more?

We’re arguing that this isn’t going to save APS money. It would eliminate an exceptional program to disperse us around the county for a worse option. So the $1 million would still be spent. But instead of spending it in one site, it would be spent in classes around the county.

K-12 students aren’t going anywhere. But neither are students receiving early intervention services with APS. APS is mandated to serve them too. So our students matter just as much as K-12.

Also, from a cost-benefit analysis: if our students make significant progress in their current placement, then they are more likely to attend general education in K-12. If our students were to be moved self-contained and make significantly less progress, we would need to send them to special education classes in K-12 potentially. So if you are worried about K-12, APS would not be expanding general education classes with lower enrollment in a few years, but having to also look for room for self-contained K-12 rooms. IN ADDITION to all the rooms IS classes would be taking space in! Which we aren’t even sure APS has room for those!

Let’s be rational. The fact that we have graduates who cannot read well, write well, or do basic math is a crisis.

If sped ratios are slightly imperfect, it’s not the end of the world.

But realistically, you’re presenting a false choice. The IS students can be absorbed into already existing classes. Modifications may need to be made, but we should absolutely end this program.

[Anonymous]

We need to focus on getting K-12 sped right. Pre-k is a nice to have.

[Anonymous]

For context as of January IS total enrollment was 43

[Anonymous]

Trying to "boil the ocean" by throwing money at too many things and not enough of the right things is why we have so many issues in our schools. Look at VA's ranking in math catchup since covid- LAST. VA of all places! We can't have all these programs spread thin so unfortunately there will be cuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For context as of January IS total enrollment was 43

1 mill on 43 students? Interesting....

[Anonymous]

IS teachers would be surplussed into those vacancies. I get you’re upset about the program ending but I think you are throwing up roadblocks that don’t exist.

IS teachers would not necessarily fill those vacancies. Those students are in addition to the ones enrolled in vacant classes.

It is illegal to have special education caseloads over capacity. Not to mention that if existing PreK special education teachers are overwhelmed, they may leave. This isn’t equivalent to general education K-12 teachers workload. Special education teachers are constantly working on instruction, but also behaviors, modifying and adapting curriculum, collecting data, testing, writing IEP paperwork and running IEP meetings, and completing progress reports (for PreK as well as IEPs). If you overburden them, and they quit, these vacancies will only increase.

Meanwhile, these students are not going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For context as of January IS total enrollment was 43

1 mill on 43 students? Interesting....

43 *PRE-K* students!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP there have been staffing challenges this year with Pre-K sped teachers. Reassigning IS teachers fills those vacancies. If lack of CPP peer models is an issue they can utilize VPI/Montessori peers as is done in other parts of the county. It’s hard to lose a program but this is a logical choice.

This wouldn’t solve the staffing problem. We would not fill vacancies. Our students are still entitled to an education under IDEA, so they aren’t going anywhere, nor are the other students receiving special education services in the county. There is a cap in Virginia for special education caseloads; it would be illegal to fill classes overcapacity. And again, if a class is filled with special education students, and less than 50% community peers, it would be a self-contained class and a worse option than what IS offers.

Dr. Mann specifically said our classes would convert to CPP. No mention of co-teaching models with existing VPI/Montessori classes. VPI is also under-enrolled right now, so it wouldn’t even be feasible to suggest APS expand co-teaching models with additional co-taught classes with VPI. It is a great alternative idea but unfortunately their enrollment numbers would not be able to make that work at this time!

What is the difference between the current classes at Integration Station and CPP in the elementary schools?