APS budget is unacceptable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the 2.5¢ tax Duran is asking for?

APS is very well funded already. They just WASTE those funds on unnecessary programs and positions. Get rid of Syphax bloat. Cut Outdoor Lab. Cut the 80/20 immersion program back to 50/50 if it’s more expensive. Get rid of ALL the option schools if they’re more expensive to run than neighborhood schools. FFS, get rid of iPads in K-5, switch to Chromebooks for 6-12.

Agree and disagree.
Rid the bloat - YES.

Cut relatively inexpensive programs that provide a unique and often lasting/life-changing learning experience like Outdoor Lab that are unique to APS? NO. (That goes for TJHSST, too)

80/20 immersion is only "more expensive" as they transition to the model and implement the new parts of the curriculum and provide teacher training. Once the model is established, it is no longer has the extra expense. And again, if this is an instructional model that has a notable positive impact on learning and achievement, especially for English learners and underprivileged students - and especially especially for underprivileged English learners - then NO.

Get rid of option schools that do not show a significant benefit for students v. a typical neighborhood school of similar demographics or less diverse? YES.
Get rid of option programs that are not clearly distinctive from non-option programs and any specific characteristics of which could be incorporated into every school? YES. (looking at you, MPSA, ATS, and HB)

Get rid of iPads entirely? YES YES and YES
Replace iPads 6-8 with laptops/Macbooks? YES. (But maybe not start 1:1 at all until 7th. 6th can continue with classroom sets)
Replace MacBooks with Chromebooks - POSSIBLY. I'd like to see the side-by-side comparisons in costs and security, maintenance, etc.

Sorry, but Outdoor Lab isn’t *LiFe ChAnGiNg* for anyone. (Well, other than the kid who was sexually assaulted recently… Yet another reason to shut it down.)

Keep TJ as an option, as sending kids there isn’t more expensive than keeping them at their home school. (And it actually IS a life-changing experience for those kids.)

And I love teachers, but if they want 12-month employee level salaries, let’s make them 12-month employees. So many kids need summer school at this point, and any excess staff could help solve the summer camp availability problem.

Outdoor Lab has indeed had life-changing impacts on numerous kids. Many kids became interested in science/environmental science/teaching specifically because of their experience there. And that experience was very special for one of my kids because of the way the adults there treated him, out of the ordinary school setting and usual mundane activities.

Agree about the 12-month employment and compensation. I don't think the comparisons AEA and its main spokesperson always make about paid/unpaid days off is fair. You can't make a straight comparison between a yearly employee with a yearly salary and specific benefits to a contracted employee paid for "x" # of days' work.

tell me why APS kids can't take a field trip to one of our many nature centers right here in the County and learn the same things?

The curriculum is coordinated with APS.
Our nature centers don't afford a camping overnight experience.
Our nature centers aren't out farther away from all the city light which hides the stars.
Our nature centers don't have boating/canoeing opportunities.
Our nature centers just don't have the space to accommodate the various activities.

this is all unnecessary fluff. or do you really think canoeing is a critical life experience that schools must provide? vs let's say teaching kids to read?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of APS math graduates in here. Cutting Outdoor Lab and TJHSST don't even come close to balancing the budget.

The sacred cows of option schools need a hard look.

Option schools have been discussed a million times and there aren't budget reasons to reconsider them. They have the same planning factors as the other schools with the exception of K-5 Montessori which gets some classroom aides. They schedule the option schools so that we can use existing buses to do another run in the morning and afternoon to hub stops so there are more hours for drivers, but not more buses. Changing the option programs back to neighborhood schools won't make any difference in staffing or building costs and might not save any transportation costs depending on how many busses are needed after all the boundaries are redrawn.

Thank you, there is so much misinformation on this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of APS math graduates in here. Cutting Outdoor Lab and TJHSST don't even come close to balancing the budget.

The sacred cows of option schools need a hard look.

Option schools have been discussed a million times and there aren't budget reasons to reconsider them. They have the same planning factors as the other schools with the exception of K-5 Montessori which gets some classroom aides. They schedule the option schools so that we can use existing buses to do another run in the morning and afternoon to hub stops so there are more hours for drivers, but not more buses. Changing the option programs back to neighborhood schools won't make any difference in staffing or building costs and might not save any transportation costs depending on how many busses are needed after all the boundaries are redrawn.

Get rid of Montessori then. There have always been private schools for families that want different styles of teaching. This doesn’t need to be funded by public dollars.

Immersion switching to 80/20 has a large upfront cost, so scrap it.

I’m in favor of eliminating all option schools, but focusing on those that actually do cost more is a good first step.

I don't think we should get rid of Montessori but since it does cost more, maybe consider a sliding scale fee structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of APS math graduates in here. Cutting Outdoor Lab and TJHSST don't even come close to balancing the budget.

The sacred cows of option schools need a hard look.

Option schools have been discussed a million times and there aren't budget reasons to reconsider them. They have the same planning factors as the other schools with the exception of K-5 Montessori which gets some classroom aides. They schedule the option schools so that we can use existing buses to do another run in the morning and afternoon to hub stops so there are more hours for drivers, but not more buses. Changing the option programs back to neighborhood schools won't make any difference in staffing or building costs and might not save any transportation costs depending on how many busses are needed after all the boundaries are redrawn.

Get rid of Montessori then. There have always been private schools for families that want different styles of teaching. This doesn’t need to be funded by public dollars.

Immersion switching to 80/20 has a large upfront cost, so scrap it.

I’m in favor of eliminating all option schools, but focusing on those that actually do cost more is a good first step.

Haven't we already paid most of the 80/20 implementation cost? The 80/20 model is already rolled out and in place for K and 1st. Those are sunk costs. We could slow down the further implementation, but scrapping it doesn't make sense at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of APS math graduates in here. Cutting Outdoor Lab and TJHSST don't even come close to balancing the budget.

The sacred cows of option schools need a hard look.

Option schools have been discussed a million times and there aren't budget reasons to reconsider them. They have the same planning factors as the other schools with the exception of K-5 Montessori which gets some classroom aides. They schedule the option schools so that we can use existing buses to do another run in the morning and afternoon to hub stops so there are more hours for drivers, but not more buses. Changing the option programs back to neighborhood schools won't make any difference in staffing or building costs and might not save any transportation costs depending on how many busses are needed after all the boundaries are redrawn.

Get rid of Montessori then. There have always been private schools for families that want different styles of teaching. This doesn’t need to be funded by public dollars.

Immersion switching to 80/20 has a large upfront cost, so scrap it.

I’m in favor of eliminating all option schools, but focusing on those that actually do cost more is a good first step.

I don't think we should get rid of Montessori but since it does cost more, maybe consider a sliding scale fee structure.

Cut it. A sliding scale fee structure still means an elevated cost for the program. No one needs Montessori to learn to read or do math, and those families that do want it — they can find a private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of APS math graduates in here. Cutting Outdoor Lab and TJHSST don't even come close to balancing the budget.

The sacred cows of option schools need a hard look.

Option schools have been discussed a million times and there aren't budget reasons to reconsider them. They have the same planning factors as the other schools with the exception of K-5 Montessori which gets some classroom aides. They schedule the option schools so that we can use existing buses to do another run in the morning and afternoon to hub stops so there are more hours for drivers, but not more buses. Changing the option programs back to neighborhood schools won't make any difference in staffing or building costs and might not save any transportation costs depending on how many busses are needed after all the boundaries are redrawn.

Get rid of Montessori then. There have always been private schools for families that want different styles of teaching. This doesn’t need to be funded by public dollars.

Immersion switching to 80/20 has a large upfront cost, so scrap it.

I’m in favor of eliminating all option schools, but focusing on those that actually do cost more is a good first step.

Haven't we already paid most of the 80/20 implementation cost? The 80/20 model is already rolled out and in place for K and 1st. Those are sunk costs. We could slow down the further implementation, but scrapping it doesn't make sense at this point.

Get rid of all option schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the 2.5¢ tax Duran is asking for?

APS is very well funded already. They just WASTE those funds on unnecessary programs and positions. Get rid of Syphax bloat. Cut Outdoor Lab. Cut the 80/20 immersion program back to 50/50 if it’s more expensive. Get rid of ALL the option schools if they’re more expensive to run than neighborhood schools. FFS, get rid of iPads in K-5, switch to Chromebooks for 6-12.

Agree and disagree.
Rid the bloat - YES.

Cut relatively inexpensive programs that provide a unique and often lasting/life-changing learning experience like Outdoor Lab that are unique to APS? NO. (That goes for TJHSST, too)

80/20 immersion is only "more expensive" as they transition to the model and implement the new parts of the curriculum and provide teacher training. Once the model is established, it is no longer has the extra expense. And again, if this is an instructional model that has a notable positive impact on learning and achievement, especially for English learners and underprivileged students - and especially especially for underprivileged English learners - then NO.

Get rid of option schools that do not show a significant benefit for students v. a typical neighborhood school of similar demographics or less diverse? YES.
Get rid of option programs that are not clearly distinctive from non-option programs and any specific characteristics of which could be incorporated into every school? YES. (looking at you, MPSA, ATS, and HB)

Get rid of iPads entirely? YES YES and YES
Replace iPads 6-8 with laptops/Macbooks? YES. (But maybe not start 1:1 at all until 7th. 6th can continue with classroom sets)
Replace MacBooks with Chromebooks - POSSIBLY. I'd like to see the side-by-side comparisons in costs and security, maintenance, etc.

Sorry, but Outdoor Lab isn’t *LiFe ChAnGiNg* for anyone. (Well, other than the kid who was sexually assaulted recently… Yet another reason to shut it down.)

Keep TJ as an option, as sending kids there isn’t more expensive than keeping them at their home school. (And it actually IS a life-changing experience for those kids.)

And I love teachers, but if they want 12-month employee level salaries, let’s make them 12-month employees. So many kids need summer school at this point, and any excess staff could help solve the summer camp availability problem.

Outdoor Lab has indeed had life-changing impacts on numerous kids. Many kids became interested in science/environmental science/teaching specifically because of their experience there. And that experience was very special for one of my kids because of the way the adults there treated him, out of the ordinary school setting and usual mundane activities.

Agree about the 12-month employment and compensation. I don't think the comparisons AEA and its main spokesperson always make about paid/unpaid days off is fair. You can't make a straight comparison between a yearly employee with a yearly salary and specific benefits to a contracted employee paid for "x" # of days' work.

tell me why APS kids can't take a field trip to one of our many nature centers right here in the County and learn the same things?

The curriculum is coordinated with APS.
Our nature centers don't afford a camping overnight experience.
Our nature centers aren't out farther away from all the city light which hides the stars.
Our nature centers don't have boating/canoeing opportunities.
Our nature centers just don't have the space to accommodate the various activities.

this is all unnecessary fluff. or do you really think canoeing is a critical life experience that schools must provide? vs let's say teaching kids to read?

I believe APS should retain a positive unique thing that isn't all that expensive in the bigger picture. Just like the planetarium. These are the two unique - and positive - things APS has. I believe the budget gap should be made-up elsewhere. Outdoor Lab and the planetarium are accessed to every APS student and they support learning, specifically science - and we all know how much STEM is prioritized.

Meanwhile, we spend lots of money on a bunch of digital learning programs that are not particularly effective in teaching, minimize human interaction, do not help develop relationships with teachers/students, and merely lessen the time teachers actually interact with and teach kids.

I'm in favor of retaining things that benefit instruction and student achievement and eliminating things that cost money but don't contribute to students' positive attitudes toward school, learning, or achievement. Gaps are caused by the disparities in home life: exposure to vocabulary and experiences, knowledge and experience of the world. Things like Outdoor Lab and other field trips are, for a significant portion of our student body, the ONLY experiences they have of this type. Like it or not, not everyone can or does take their kid camping or canoeing or to nature centers or museums. These kids need and deserve the exposure to experiences their more advantaged peers have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1997/10/02/arlington-schools-may-ease-stance-on-jefferson-high/6ac6403c-ef7f-406a-bc4a-a3eb654e1734/


Article from 1997 about aps paying tuition to tj

For the math challenged on this forum this 1997 article explains why sending kids to TJ does not save APS money no matter what TJ costs:

The $8,000 is less than the average $9,305 cost of educating a student in the Arlington system. But the system does not save any money by sending a student to Jefferson because it cannot, for example, reduce the salaries of teachers when a few students leave their classes, school officials explained.

Ok then let’s call it a way to reduce class sizes.

I can see why you are anti-TJ, you seem to be pretty anti-math. If x number fewer kids go to a school, they don't reduce class sizes. Class sizes are determined by planning factors. The planning factors are established by the school board and listed in a book/manual.

If the planning factor for a class is 25 and 21 kids show up, they get a teacher. If 29 kids sign up, they will divide them into two sections. Sending 25 kids to TJ (from three high schools) doesn't change the planning factors--it might have a tiny tiny effect on how many sections of a class are offered in a school.

This is why the finance department doesn't have precise estimates of every possible budget scenario (especially when it comes to option schools) and goes by averages. They can't tell you the exact effect changes would have on staffing because it has to do with what home schools those kids are assigned to, what grades they are in, how close to the planning factors those grades are already--or the specific classes those kids would enroll in, whether those kids would be bus riders or not at their home schools, etc. etc.

We're talking about a $825 million budget here. The total cost of sending a couple of dozen kids to TJ is less than 0.1% of the budget, so the marginal difference in cost (up or down) between sending a couple of dozen kids to TJ versus keeping them in Arlington is like a hundredth of a percent.

Yup. This whole thread is discussing negligible line items.

What we really need is full funding from Youngkin and the county.

And what exactly is full funding???

Senate proposal is a start - pg 32
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/D2WW4J839BAE/$file/FY%202025%20Superintendent's%20Presentation%20FINAL%20(331%20pm).pdf

The state and county should step up and appropriately fund our schools.
"“Virginia school divisions receive less K-12 funding per student than the 50-state average,
the regional average, and three of Virginia’s five bordering states. School divisions in other
states receive 14 percent more per student than school divisions in Virginia, on average,
after normalizing for differences in cost of labor among states. This equates to about
$1,900 more per student than Virginia.”
Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC)
estimates that annually APS is underfunded by approximately $51 million"

I'll never understand why we're willing to give billionaires $2b+ to build stadiums, but don't even consider giving $2b to public education.

Exactly. They want us arguing over field trips (WTF) instead of properly funding our schools.

VA had a huge surplus last year. Why is Youngkin cutting the budget for K-12?

Democrats just passed budget that increases k-12 spending. We still have spending gap in Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of APS math graduates in here. Cutting Outdoor Lab and TJHSST don't even come close to balancing the budget.

The sacred cows of option schools need a hard look.

Option schools have been discussed a million times and there aren't budget reasons to reconsider them. They have the same planning factors as the other schools with the exception of K-5 Montessori which gets some classroom aides. They schedule the option schools so that we can use existing buses to do another run in the morning and afternoon to hub stops so there are more hours for drivers, but not more buses. Changing the option programs back to neighborhood schools won't make any difference in staffing or building costs and might not save any transportation costs depending on how many busses are needed after all the boundaries are redrawn.

Thank you, there is so much misinformation on this point.

Not sure which way your comment is meant. I'd like to see a line item cost for option schools. Eliminating them won't negate the looming budget deficits; but I suspect streamlining them (ie, eliminating most of them) would contribute similarly to eliminating Outdoor Lab and other nitpicky cuts people are arguing over, while potentially making overall instruction across the system more focused and consistent, and thereby more effective. I'm in support of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of APS math graduates in here. Cutting Outdoor Lab and TJHSST don't even come close to balancing the budget.

The sacred cows of option schools need a hard look.

Option schools have been discussed a million times and there aren't budget reasons to reconsider them. They have the same planning factors as the other schools with the exception of K-5 Montessori which gets some classroom aides. They schedule the option schools so that we can use existing buses to do another run in the morning and afternoon to hub stops so there are more hours for drivers, but not more buses. Changing the option programs back to neighborhood schools won't make any difference in staffing or building costs and might not save any transportation costs depending on how many busses are needed after all the boundaries are redrawn.

Get rid of Montessori then. There have always been private schools for families that want different styles of teaching. This doesn’t need to be funded by public dollars.

Immersion switching to 80/20 has a large upfront cost, so scrap it.

I’m in favor of eliminating all option schools, but focusing on those that actually do cost more is a good first step.

I don't think we should get rid of Montessori but since it does cost more, maybe consider a sliding scale fee structure.

Cut it. A sliding scale fee structure still means an elevated cost for the program. No one needs Montessori to learn to read or do math, and those families that do want it — they can find a private school.

+1
And I don't need to hear again how it's benefiting the poor because it's the only program that sets aside a % seats for those making less than 80% AMI. (that COULD be done with every program if APS wanted to) It's not benefiting the poor any more than one immersion school or ATS. In fact, I'd argue ATS is doing far more for the poor kids than Montessori and Montessori comes with extra costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of APS math graduates in here. Cutting Outdoor Lab and TJHSST don't even come close to balancing the budget.

The sacred cows of option schools need a hard look.

Option schools have been discussed a million times and there aren't budget reasons to reconsider them. They have the same planning factors as the other schools with the exception of K-5 Montessori which gets some classroom aides. They schedule the option schools so that we can use existing buses to do another run in the morning and afternoon to hub stops so there are more hours for drivers, but not more buses. Changing the option programs back to neighborhood schools won't make any difference in staffing or building costs and might not save any transportation costs depending on how many busses are needed after all the boundaries are redrawn.

Thank you, there is so much misinformation on this point.

Ridiculous. The transportation burden on APS alone so Larla can play with clay in Montessori is insane

[Anonymous]

Don’t we have three levels of vice presidents of DEI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t we have three levels of vice presidents of DEI?

All secondary schools have an additional DEI person. They also have discipline deans. Elementary Equity Influencers get a stipend. Central office coordinator positions have increased a lot in the past few years. All of this is costing a lot of money. The question is - do schools truly need these positions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1997/10/02/arlington-schools-may-ease-stance-on-jefferson-high/6ac6403c-ef7f-406a-bc4a-a3eb654e1734/


Article from 1997 about aps paying tuition to tj

For the math challenged on this forum this 1997 article explains why sending kids to TJ does not save APS money no matter what TJ costs:

The $8,000 is less than the average $9,305 cost of educating a student in the Arlington system. But the system does not save any money by sending a student to Jefferson because it cannot, for example, reduce the salaries of teachers when a few students leave their classes, school officials explained.

Ok then let’s call it a way to reduce class sizes.

I can see why you are anti-TJ, you seem to be pretty anti-math. If x number fewer kids go to a school, they don't reduce class sizes. Class sizes are determined by planning factors. The planning factors are established by the school board and listed in a book/manual.

If the planning factor for a class is 25 and 21 kids show up, they get a teacher. If 29 kids sign up, they will divide them into two sections. Sending 25 kids to TJ (from three high schools) doesn't change the planning factors--it might have a tiny tiny effect on how many sections of a class are offered in a school.

This is why the finance department doesn't have precise estimates of every possible budget scenario (especially when it comes to option schools) and goes by averages. They can't tell you the exact effect changes would have on staffing because it has to do with what home schools those kids are assigned to, what grades they are in, how close to the planning factors those grades are already--or the specific classes those kids would enroll in, whether those kids would be bus riders or not at their home schools, etc. etc.

We're talking about a $825 million budget here. The total cost of sending a couple of dozen kids to TJ is less than 0.1% of the budget, so the marginal difference in cost (up or down) between sending a couple of dozen kids to TJ versus keeping them in Arlington is like a hundredth of a percent.

Yup. This whole thread is discussing negligible line items.

What we really need is full funding from Youngkin and the county.

And what exactly is full funding???

Senate proposal is a start - pg 32
https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/D2WW4J839BAE/$file/FY%202025%20Superintendent's%20Presentation%20FINAL%20(331%20pm).pdf

The state and county should step up and appropriately fund our schools.
"“Virginia school divisions receive less K-12 funding per student than the 50-state average,
the regional average, and three of Virginia’s five bordering states. School divisions in other
states receive 14 percent more per student than school divisions in Virginia, on average,
after normalizing for differences in cost of labor among states. This equates to about
$1,900 more per student than Virginia.”
Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC)
estimates that annually APS is underfunded by approximately $51 million"

I'll never understand why we're willing to give billionaires $2b+ to build stadiums, but don't even consider giving $2b to public education.

Exactly. They want us arguing over field trips (WTF) instead of properly funding our schools.

VA had a huge surplus last year. Why is Youngkin cutting the budget for K-12?

Democrats just passed budget that increases k-12 spending. We still have spending gap in Arlington.

It partially filled Youngkin’s cuts but it didn’t increase funding from the prior year.

The CB also has to step up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of APS math graduates in here. Cutting Outdoor Lab and TJHSST don't even come close to balancing the budget.

The sacred cows of option schools need a hard look.

Option schools have been discussed a million times and there aren't budget reasons to reconsider them. They have the same planning factors as the other schools with the exception of K-5 Montessori which gets some classroom aides. They schedule the option schools so that we can use existing buses to do another run in the morning and afternoon to hub stops so there are more hours for drivers, but not more buses. Changing the option programs back to neighborhood schools won't make any difference in staffing or building costs and might not save any transportation costs depending on how many busses are needed after all the boundaries are redrawn.

Get rid of Montessori then. There have always been private schools for families that want different styles of teaching. This doesn’t need to be funded by public dollars.

Immersion switching to 80/20 has a large upfront cost, so scrap it.

I’m in favor of eliminating all option schools, but focusing on those that actually do cost more is a good first step.

I don't think we should get rid of Montessori but since it does cost more, maybe consider a sliding scale fee structure.

Cut it. A sliding scale fee structure still means an elevated cost for the program. No one needs Montessori to learn to read or do math, and those families that do want it — they can find a private school.

Agree with this

My other pet peeve is HB. That program needs to end and it needs to be a neighborhood school.